Just to be clear, Pielke is also in the op article testifying to the panel. So obviously there already is a place for his viewpoints, and given all the other people testifying have jobs as well, places for their viewpoints also. Part of being a scientist is accepting that every publication can end your career if you get it really wrong.

This isn't science camp. If you `rm -rf /` a live server, you should have your actions evaluated carefully to see why that happened and if you acted appropriately. Professional science is the same, if you can't prove your case then there are consequences, saying you're right because you're being picked on doesn't cut it.

But it's not a political issue. How politicized it is shouldn't matter.

In a perfect world yes, but lots of scientific disciplines are heavily influenced by politics and public opinion in terms of funding, University support, etc. We can't pretend it doesn't matter

It doesn't matter to the supporting data. Thermometers don't run off of opinion. I guess that is what we need to convince people? lol

The money to fund the thermostats may depend on opinion.

In a fantasy world complete with international conspirators with god-like powers..... sure. If you don't like my use of the word "fantasy" then by all means provide some evidence.

These studies effect government policies. Any debate of facts which effect government policies is political.

We define how "political" an issue is precisely by how politicized it has become.

I agree that it shouldn't matter, but unfortunately it does and (ironically!) we can't pretend things are different just because that better suits our point of view.

There's power to be had by convincing people. It's political.

How is this the top comment? The use of the word heretic in the article subtly implies the consensus on climate change is based on faith and not tons and tons of research. It's not that there is no place for different viewpoints, there just comes a time when the burden of proof for contrarian research becomes so high that most of it never clears the bar.

Yeah, I have been spending YEARS arguing for my Flat Earth theory, but I am constantly under attack for my alternate views! There should be a place for my viewpoints!

Please don't post deliberately inflammatory sarcasm, that's jet fuel for flamewars.

When a line of questioning flat out ignores huge amounts of evidence then it can not be considered "critical".