> By advocating inaction, you are expressly taking the side of the denialists, even though you claim not to agree with them, technically.
So what? If a particular response is "correct", why does it matter who else advocates said response? Why does it even matter what their reasons are?
Surely you're not arguing that we should do dumb things because ugly people say otherwise....
BTW - you've got things backwards. It isn't "go along with us because we're good people", it's "we're good people because we do good things". If you're pushing bad science....
So what? If a particular response is "correct", why does it matter who else advocates said response? Why does it even matter what their reasons are?
Surely you're not arguing that we should do dumb things because ugly people say otherwise....
BTW - you've got things backwards. It isn't "go along with us because we're good people", it's "we're good people because we do good things". If you're pushing bad science....