> How do we know when it becomes ok to question fact or scientific consensus or not? I mean, the straightforward answer to this is "when there is a high degree

> How do we know when it becomes ok to question fact or scientific consensus or not? I mean, the straightforward answer to this is "when there is a high degree of confidence that the claims are harmful, incorrect, politically motivated, and reported in the media rather than scientific publication". At some point we have to draw an epistemological line and say we're sure about this, and we're sure what you're saying would cause suffering. The fact that humanity has been wrong in the past doesn't mean we should stop trying to prevent harm. > Is there not room to disagree with many proposed climate change solutions without being labeled as anti-scientific? There is, but that's not all that this website is doing. A very quick search brings up two articles where it publicises very fringe claims by people who are not climate scientists: https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/14/climate-emergency-not-supported-by-data-say-four-leading-italian-scientists/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/09/14/climate-emergency-not-su... https://dailysceptic.org/2022/06/24/climate-scientist-says-humans-cause-less-than-0-05c-of-global-warming-and-warns-of-anarchy-from-delusional-net-zero-policies/ https://dailysceptic.org/2022/06/24/climate-scientist-says-h... The second of these is particularly bizarre. The title actually says "climate scientist" and in the slightly more measured footnote calls him an "atmospheric scientist". It neglects to point out that he is a retired researcher in laser engineering who has apparently conducted his own investigations - neither published nor peer reviewed as far as I can tell - http://hharde.de/#xl_xr_page_index http://hharde.de/#xl_xr_page_index . This is very typical of presenting a false balance in order to push an agenda.