The fact that they think 'X information is dangerous' is an acceptable reason to censor valid findings tells you everything you need to know about their so-called authority - and exactly how much credence you should give them when they tell you to 'trust the science'.

It's bought and paid for - has been for a while - and even if it wasn't, it's quickly brought to heel in the face of ideological pressure and hysteria. The more they do this, the more they destroy their own credibility, and, unfortunately, the credibility of scientific inquiry in the long term. Those among them who really do believe in destructive climate change are doing precisely everything they can to destroy their own narrative.

The fact that they think 'X information is dangerous because it will be received in Y way or used by Z group to push dangerous ideas' is an acceptable reason to censor valid findings tells you everything you need to know about their so-called authority - and exactly how much credence you should give them when they tell you to 'trust the science'.

It's bought and paid for - has been for a while - and even if it wasn't, it's quickly brought to heel in the face of ideological pressure and hysteria. The more they do this, the more they destroy their own credibility, and, unfortunately, the credibility of scientific inquiry in the long term. Those among them who really do believe in destructive climate change are doing precisely everything they can to destroy their own narrative.

The fact that they think 'X information is dangerous because it will be received in Y way or used by X group to push for dangerous things' is a valid reason to censor valid findings tells you everything you need to know about their so-called authority. And exactly how much credence you should give them when they tell you to 'trust the science'.