That’s the problem with conservative-style thinking, the assumption that an unquestionable authority exists at all. I think they struggle with science because we know (through science) that the conservative brain isn’t wired for ambiguity. God is absolute; human knowledge isn’t perfect and can be turned on its head at any moment. Nothing is unquestionable.

We’re a species designed for simpler times, but our ability to learn information has outstripped our ability to process it. Some of it is so specialized that only a handful of people in the entire world can understand — there are concepts so difficult that you could hold a meeting of everyone in the world with the background to understand them around one conference table.

But you do make a point — the public discourse does people a disservice by misusing “settled.” Nothing is ever set in stone, though when a field has been explored deeply enough, there are theories that become near-certainties. But only near, they could still change.

A better framing for something like global warming would be that the science is settled enough that we should operate on the assumption it’s true.

So:

• We know the globe is warming, that’s a matter of reading thermometers.
• Does it pose a threat to human life and the risk of massive death and instability? 100%. Rising sea levels alone could cause civilization as we know it to collapse.
• Are humans contributing? As far as the science goes to date, yes.

Given that, what should we do?

It may not be possible to solve the problem, but it makes sense to try, given that the consequences are so potentially dire. As a nice side effect, reducing carbon emissions will also reduce pollution. That will save many lives, and improve thequality of life for everyone.

Why is the discourse so stunted? Look how hard it is even to lay out in broad strokes.