[jamez1]

This would be fair if she wasn't arguing that the credibility of healthy skepticism shouldn't be tarnished in science.

"Climate believers" attack her credibility, she defends her credibility, but her arguments are invalid from the start because she's not credible?

The group of people who want to research the grandiose climate change narrative from a skeptical angle are attacked because of political reasons not because what they are doing is wrong scientifically.

Climate science should be thankful she exists, not offended.