I posted at some length last week on why I don’t respond to complaints from climate deniers, but what I’d say if I did. Well, yesterday, a federal appeals court summed up my basic argument in two simple, direct sentences in upholding the EPA’s decision to regulate greenhouse gas pollution:

“This is how science works. EPA is not required to re-prove the existence of the atom every time it approaches a scientific question.”

Clearly, I couldn’t have said it better myself.

As for government agencies, so, too, for journalists — the basic understanding of climate change and the impact of increasing greenhouse gases in the atmosphere is settled science. It doesn’t need to be re-explained, re-debated or questioned every time it comes up in our reporting.

Simple as that.