I’ll put this out first: I’m not a Climate Skeptic! Say it again: I’m not a Climate Skeptic! That said (twice), I am fine with people questioning the so-called “consensus”. This doesn’t mean that I think their opinions are always logical or backed up by high quality science. It just means there should be room for disagreement.
Per Scalia in District of Columbia v. Heller: “Like most rights, the 2nd Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld...[and] the Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places…or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”
The movement …holds to "a holistic worldview", emphasising that the Mind, Body, and Spirit are interrelated and that there is a form of monism and unity throughout the universe. It attempts to create "a worldview that includes both science and spirituality" and embraces a number of forms of mainstream science as well as other forms of science that are considered fringe.
Prefacing a statement with “I believe” is usually an acknowledgement of some uncertainty. “I believe you are wrong” is softer than “You are wrong”. It’s curious that “belief” is defined in terms of confidence but “to believe” reveals an element of doubt.
The other side consists of scoundrels and idiots. Problem is, focusing on the personal qualities of those with whom we disagree gets in the way of determining whether their case has any merit. Sometimes we can learn a thing or two from people we dislike.
Setting the Tone: "He who knows only his own side of the case, knows little of that…Nor is it enough that he should hear the arguments of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. That is not the way to do justice to the arguments, or bring them into real contact with his own mind. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them; who defend them in earnest, and do their very utmost for them. He must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form…." From: “On Liberty”, Collected Works of John Stuart Mill, Vol. XVII: Essays on Politics and Society.
Initial impressions can be insightful, partly because they are not weighed down by extensive knowledge. And of course expert knowledge and understanding are also valuable!
My focus will be what is written or said in the name of mindfulness, regardless of whether what is written or said reflects a “correct” understanding. My approach will be somewhat like that of an anthropologist studying the system of meaning shared by members of a community - the culture of that community.