No, this is an argument about being skeptical about climate change effects, which is good. There are a lot of people weaponizing climate change to affect their careers in a positive way by jumping on the bandwagon.

(And yes, it is my opinion that climate change is absolutely happening. Does not mean that we can't be skeptical of the effect sizes cited.)

I just love it that everyone is saying things like:

"And yes, it is my opinion that climate change is absolutely happening" .

The level of fear in stating simple opinions has gone to 11.

I know. Unfortunately, as you have alluded to, if I don't say that, I'll be accused of being a climate change denier by somebody.

But what's wrong with that? People don't mind being called a cognitive priming denier or whatever. Treating it like an insult adds power to its effect.

It's not how one treats it, it's how one is treated when this insult is used.

No possible discussion follows. All opinions, however tame, are outcast.

What are you trying to say here? That if a fact (such as that a particular field spins tenuous research into facts - let's assume that's a fact) happens to lead us to a conclusion we don't like, we should 'be careful' and pretend the fact is untrue? That's obviously horrifically unscientific.

Or is this the point you are making, and you are expressing a climate-change-denying position, really obtusely? If so, it's on you to show climate science is 'spinning tenuous research into facts'.

> happens to lead us to a conclusion we don't like, we should 'be careful' and pretend the fact is untrue?

Reduce that to:

> happens to lead us to a conclusion we don't like, we should be careful especially given the immense political pressure both within science and in governments.

Liking has little to do with it.

Those who are purists also don't like that others question dogma.

I think it's just very subtle sarcasm that these are dangerous thoughts in a world where thought-crime is real.