I did not say anything to that effect in my previous comment. In fact, your question is so mindbogglingly groundless I am not even going to bother answering it.
> The article can be used as a tool by climate change deniers. They could say: "science have many major issues and therefore climate change is a figment of these communist eggheads imagination."
Of course it can, and nothing is going to stop them. But does that mean we shouldn't be talking about the problems we are facing in science? You aren't going to fix anything if you refuse to talk about it.
This article isn't about climate change any more than it is about climate change deniers. That's another discussion for another time. This article is about our problems in the way we do science. So stick to the point, please.
I did not say anything to that effect in my previous comment. In fact, your question is so mindbogglingly groundless I am not even going to bother answering it.
> The article can be used as a tool by climate change deniers. They could say: "science have many major issues and therefore climate change is a figment of these communist eggheads imagination."
Of course it can, and nothing is going to stop them. But does that mean we shouldn't be talking about the problems we are facing in science? You aren't going to fix anything if you refuse to talk about it.
This article isn't about climate change any more than it is about climate change deniers. That's another discussion for another time. This article is about our problems in the way we do science. So stick to the point, please.