Here's the thing: honest enquiry is something that should be encouraged. Sea-lioning[1], JAQing off[2] and Gish gallops[3] should not. When you are buried to your eyeballs in bullshit, it's hard to see who is really someone willing learn, and who is just shoveling on more.
It boggles my mind that people use the term sealioning unironically. How can it possibly be that a sensible person thinks it's ok to make a hateful statement in a public place and when someone asks clarification about it they are the harassers?!
You are not a priest preaching to the ignorant congregation, if you don't want to deal with the bullshit get off the fucking podium.
Here's my sealion of a question. What parts of climate change research are actually backed up by the scientific method (experiments with falsifiable hypotheses and all that) and what parts are more akin to natural history or something else? To clarify, I believe humans caused the problem (it appears that stating this makes people like you more, which is weird, but ok) but I cringe every time I hear the word science attached to the debate. Is it like a social science? I think someone told me that we know for sure that greenhouse gas emissions cause ozone depletion but I can't remember anymore. What is the actual hard science here?
>What parts of climate change research are actually backed up by the scientific method (experiments with falsifiable hypotheses and all that) and what parts are more akin to natural history or something else?
I do not generally get involved in the climate change debate because it has multiple problems: it happens on scales (both time and space) that humans have difficulty observing, it is about a system with lots of feedback that could very well behave chaotically, direct observations of the phenomenon are limited compared to its timescale, experts of the subject are operating under perverse incentives, it is highly politicized and almost everything that's easy to read about the subject is blatant propaganda (see all the climate change denialist posted in this thread as well as the OP).
Your question is hard to answer because it assumes there is a shared and agreed upon definition of the word "science" that can be used to determine with certainty wethere something is science or not.
> Is it like a social science? I think someone told me that we know for sure that greenhouse gas emissions cause ozone depletion but I can't remember anymore. What is the actual hard science here?
I think it is in better shape than the average social science, the greenhouse effect and the ozone depletion are two separate phenomena, this [1] is the experiment that explains how the greenhouse effect works, the wikipedia page about ozone depletion explains the chemical reactions that lead to that.
1) You can't tell whether someone is "just asking questions" in good faith or not.
2) Dismissing a horde of people all raising the same problems with one's beliefs as "sealions" is a tempting shortcut to actually examining one's beliefs, which might in fact be wrong.
So the answer is to assume that everyone is pulling your chain in an effort piss you off with their bullshit? That is a prime example as to why I see all this as really sad. If one can't handle the bullshit, perceived or real, slung out in public discourse then maybe one shouldn't participate in the public discourse about that particular topic. Because most likely these are the type people who sling their own bullshit disguised as truth.
My memories of a debate, especially a scientific debate, was that both sides presented their best evidence to determine a likely winner. These days it seems the easiest way to win a debate is to insult the other side enough so that they shut up. If someone uses that tactic in a debate I immediately question the validity of their viewpoint; because it seems they question it themselves and are not willing to admit it.
[1] - http://simplikation.com/why-sealioning-is-bad/
[2] - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Just_asking_questions
[3] - http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Gish_Gallop