The vast majority of "the public" lacks the intelligence to understand the intricacies of the Scientific Method, let alone be able to detect when it is improperly used. To them, "Scientist" is a title that commands respect, deference... and obedience - the New Priesthood.
Evolution is a theory that accounts for facts that anyone can observe - that is, the abundance of life on earth. Humans are here, along with monkeys, birds, snails, insects, trees, mold, bacteria, etc. The religious assertion had always been that "God" just *poofed* all our ancestors into being in some cosmic fart, and that is how we all got here. Evolution, however, provides a simple physical processes for generating the biodiversity we observe - eliminating the impetus to accept a supernatural explanation.
"Anthropogenic global warming", on the other hand, is a different beast altogether. It began as speculation in search of facts, or put another way, a bias in search of confirmation. It doesn't seek to explain a past, but to predict a future. It also has the unfortunate feature of being a warped political justification for increased wealth confiscation - something all States fundamentally seek to gain. And wouldn't you know it; the State is the single biggest provider of grants and funding research (confirmatory only) into the potential goldmine. "The end is nigh... unless you pay up!"
People forget that even Galileo recanted when he saw what the political apparatus had in store for him. Nowadays that lesson is lost while the threats are much more subtle - public ridicule, loss of funding... being "blackballed" for anything less than fully-endorsing a politically-backed consensus. One minute you're in the game; a 'respected scientist' and the next minute you're a joke who will be mocked by the media and shunned from academia. Written off as a kook on par with flat-earthers and republicans.
In other words, the observation and scientific discovery surrounding evolution is orders of magnitude above the statistical shenanigans that support AGW. They are no more alike than dermatology and phrenology.
That's my observation.
Evolution is a theory that accounts for facts that anyone can observe - that is, the abundance of life on earth. Humans are here, along with monkeys, birds, snails, insects, trees, mold, bacteria, etc. The religious assertion had always been that "God" just *poofed* all our ancestors into being in some cosmic fart, and that is how we all got here. Evolution, however, provides a simple physical processes for generating the biodiversity we observe - eliminating the impetus to accept a supernatural explanation.
"Anthropogenic global warming", on the other hand, is a different beast altogether. It began as speculation in search of facts, or put another way, a bias in search of confirmation. It doesn't seek to explain a past, but to predict a future. It also has the unfortunate feature of being a warped political justification for increased wealth confiscation - something all States fundamentally seek to gain. And wouldn't you know it; the State is the single biggest provider of grants and funding research (confirmatory only) into the potential goldmine. "The end is nigh... unless you pay up!"
People forget that even Galileo recanted when he saw what the political apparatus had in store for him. Nowadays that lesson is lost while the threats are much more subtle - public ridicule, loss of funding... being "blackballed" for anything less than fully-endorsing a politically-backed consensus. One minute you're in the game; a 'respected scientist' and the next minute you're a joke who will be mocked by the media and shunned from academia. Written off as a kook on par with flat-earthers and republicans.
In other words, the observation and scientific discovery surrounding evolution is orders of magnitude above the statistical shenanigans that support AGW. They are no more alike than dermatology and phrenology.
That's my observation.