>"No, it's because, to properly do "science" you can (generally) meaningfully only ask a single question at a time." I have never heard this before and do not

>"No, it's because, to properly do "science" you can (generally) meaningfully only ask a single question at a time." I have never heard this before and do not see why that would be the case... it sounds like something a person unfamiliar with science would make up. >"This is an observational finding, not an investigative one. That means these specific scientists are there to observe and document the event, not tell us why it happened. That's someone else's paper, which is probably being written right now." This seems to presume the "observing" scientists are less familiar with the literature on their topic of expertise than all the random internet posters who have already linked it to climate change. It is either that or everyone has somehow avoided looking at the relationship between the breakup of the ice shelf and climate change (which I find totally implausible, if that is true I will suspect there is some type of mischief involved here).