Contrarians start demanding «definitive proof» when they're moving the goal - posts in order to
avoid accepting evidence - based conclusions that are inconvenient for their position.
Not exact matches
The investigations that we have had are a joke because they amount deliberately
avoided looking at any contrary
evidence and simply
accepted the accused explanations with no cross examination.
The scope of the Inquiry was drawn sufficiently narrowly so as to
avoid many important issues and the Committee seemed to
accept the notion that the «science is settled» without probing inconsistencies and contradictions in the
evidence.
In this case, the goal is to
avoid acknowledging that the burden of proof is on AGW, not its critics; in fact, AGW is such an extraordinary claim that it would require extraordinary
evidence to be
accepted.
The optimal policy approach to this integral technology is one that recognizes the emissions reductions that industry has and will continue to achieve, recognizes the effectiveness of state regulations,
accepts the scientific
evidence and
avoids additional regulations that could discourage production while providing little or no additional environmental or safety benefits.