[mfatica]

What are you on about? That's exactly how honest science works. You said it yourself here:

> They attack the cause of Antarctic sea ice collapse by claming that temperature flux changes in the Antarctic bed are caused by geothermal activity. Scientists investigate, adjust for this variable, and it's still the fact that the brutal increases in atmospheric and ocean temperature are the cause for the collapse. Crickets.

1. Scientists publish findings on climate science

2. Someone says hey this might be incorrect if you haven't considered X

3. Scientists conduct further research while accounting for X

Final result is now more accurate than before the "attacks".

It seems to me the position of climate change proponents is that nothing should be questioned. This is not honest science.

[SiempreViernes]

No, the blog post was just an example of yet another attempt to halt the crucial work towards managing the current climate crisis, not an honest attempt at advancing science.

So far similar efforts has managed to prevent meaningful mitigation actions against climate change for 30 years, so please don't add to the troubles with your disinformation.

[rayiner]

> No, the blog post was just an example of yet another attempt to halt the crucial work towards managing the current climate crisis, not an honest attempt at advancing science.

A really unfortunate reality of climate science is that it’s inextricably tied to the work of combatting climate change (if it exists). The normal scientific prices can’t work when any criticism of one set of results can be reframed in political terms.

[skrowl]

Shutting down discussion is the opposite of the scientific method, but global warming alarmists know their arguments can't stand up to scrutiny so it's their default position to just de-platform anyone who is skeptical.

[digitaltrees]

The asymmetric harm that is possible makes skeptics irrational. The downside if we over correct for climate change is wound down or restructured oil companies, restricted products and production, but in exchange there is a cleaner more technologically advanced global society that has the ability to coordinate to address global scale problems and is on a good path to having the social cooperation necessary to colonize space.

Worst case if skepticism is wrong; civilization collapses as mass extinction creates scarcity and thus violence.