It's not real.
It's real but it's not caused by us.
It's caused by us but the water does not rise.
The water does rise but that's actually good.
etc.
It's real but it's not caused by us.
It's caused by us but the water does not rise.
The water does rise but that's actually good.
etc.
We believe in gaining a consensus, but you'd better believe what we say or else.
> I can't remember where I heard this, but someone once said that defending a position by citing free speech is sort of the ultimate concession; you're saying that the most compelling thing you can say for your position is that it's not literally illegal to express.
I am not defending a position. I was merely pointing out the irony in trying to force a consensus.
Also, there is a difference between thinking that people speaking freely is good for a society's health, and trying to win a legal/ego battle.
If people can't handle a relatively neutral discussion about such things, then they might as well say so up front. I can understand if people have run out of patience, but it's far from being one-sided.
As for the cause, there is bound to be disagreement when you try to reduce it down to a single factor.
If the waters aren't muddied enough by these oversimplifications, along come the thought police to tell us that racism is to blame.
It's not hard to see why people think this discourse is a cover for something else.
I didn't knew that papers were oversimplified, because you're talking about science, not the media, isn't?