Scientists shouldn't debate gaslighters

[Caliman73]

11. They only have a voice because a very small minority of people want to hear it...

There were credentialed doctors who said smoking cigarettes was healthy for you too. They were being paid to say it.

There are credentialed professionals who say climate change is not happening and/or human carbon dioxide emissions are not a factor in it. They are being paid.

The problem is that a mistrust of science and expertise has infiltrated society, spurred on and funded by people who make large sums of money from doing things that damage humanity.

To give them a platform is to give them validity.

I will definitely concede or stipulate that professionals who understand and accept the science should be out there and much more vocal in denouncing falsehoods. I just do not think that it should come in the form of debate. I do not think that a scientist should sit across from a charlatan or fool to discuss the controversy. The controversy is not that there are two differing views. The controversy is that someone is getting paid to lie, or that someone is deluded enough to accept a premise for which there is no evidence.

If you feel that "choosing sides" encapsulates that idea, then we can just leave it at that. I think we both want the same thing, I believe, just have different ideas about addressing the situation.