The piece is clearly labeled as opinion and analysis. Opinion, analysis, and advocacy is part of many actual scientific journals, as it is of science itself. Go browse Science, Nature, New England Journal of Medicine, JAMA for starters.
Now, why don't you enlighten us with exactly what you find wrong with the opinion or analysis in this piece, and provide a little more signal yourself. Science is cited in the opinion piece. Do you have an argument with the science cited? Or with the opinion?
There is no scientific content in the article. There is no analysis. There is nothing but a few scientific words, with 5 paragraphs (out of 9) devoted attacking skeptics.
Because the opposition here is not grounded in any robust scientific theory...but a hysterical reaction to the possibly of what? One-world government? The return of communism?
...those working in the fossil fuel extraction and/or burning business.
There is, in fact, a climate conspiracy...launched by the fossil fuel industry
...same flaks and hacks who brought you "smoking isn't dangerous."
In the paragraphs that were not ad-hominem attacks, there was one grounding paragraph (mentioning hacked emails), and another paragraph which (falsely) claims the most damaging email is a complaint about funding. Only one paragraph provides a few links to climate-related science, and that paragraph is more or less tangential to the main article.
The main opinion expressed here: climate skeptics are right wing conspiracy theorists working for the oil and tobacco companies.
Not sure why this is hacker news, or even relevant to the issue.
Now, why don't you enlighten us with exactly what you find wrong with the opinion or analysis in this piece, and provide a little more signal yourself. Science is cited in the opinion piece. Do you have an argument with the science cited? Or with the opinion?