Canadian Politics Today

I judge the quality of science of a field based on how it treats its dissenters. A field where dissenters are treated with respect gives me confidence that the majority conclusions are well founded. A field where dissenters are attacked and have their livelihoods threatened tells me that the majority conclusions are not well founded and the majority fears people who would examine them.

Climate science is a field where dissenters are attacked. This means I have zero confidence in any claims made by the majority. If their claims were really that strong they would not need to respond in the way they do.

"Zero confidence in any claims made by the majority" Now there's a cop out if I ever heard one. You are talking about the majority of specifically trained scientists. It sounds more like you are attacking that majority in favor of the few dissenters because you don't like what the former are telling you. And for instance, 800,000 sq. km. of ice missing from the Arctic Ocean is not a claim, it's a fact that can be seen clearly from satellite imagery. Trying to ignore such things is kinda like Nero fiddling while Rome burned.