Given the high profile and sweeping consequences of their work, this attitude is giving science a black eye.
First of all, "climate science" != "science as a whole".
Second, if any scientific field ends up in the crosshairs of a well-funded politically motivated movement working against it at any cost, then it will become hostile towards skeptics and eventually start stonewalling them. This happened in biology re: critics of evolution (in the anti-evolution camps there are tons of complaints about censorship, refusal to address criticisms, provide data, share models and code, etc.), and whereas it's always possible to address criticisms, the other side is always willing to spend more money to poke new "holes" in the theory, and you'll just never win.
"Skeptics" like to portray the ultimate goal of science as if it's to continually try to poke holes in existing theories, because progress is made when theories are disproven. But that's not science. Science is when you mix a desire to poke holes in theories with a reasonable threshold of acceptance, a willingness to step back and say "Okay, we've spent a lot of energy coming up with arguments as to why this is wrong, and they've been addressed satisfactorily, so this is probably right, let's see if this takes us anywhere new rather than getting stuck arguing the point".
Climate skeptics lack the willingness, even in theory, to accept that enough is enough - I don't believe for one moment that there is, even in principle, any piece of evidence that would lessen the amount of criticism against AGW. I don't believe they would give in because we've already seen that no amount of evidence reduced the amount of anti-evolution noise, and it's by and large the same sources of funding and political motivation that's behind both movements.
Now, it very well may be the case that climate scientists also lack the willingness to admit that they're wrong (actually, I think this is pretty likely), in which case they're not doing science, either, and that's bad. I'm totally in agreement there.
But they're taking exactly the approach to the skeptics that they would (and arguably, should) be taking if they were doing proper science. So the way they deal with skeptics is not a point of evidence either for or against the honesty of their scientific investigations, it's merely an inevitable result of the politicization of their field.
First of all, "climate science" != "science as a whole".
Second, if any scientific field ends up in the crosshairs of a well-funded politically motivated movement working against it at any cost, then it will become hostile towards skeptics and eventually start stonewalling them. This happened in biology re: critics of evolution (in the anti-evolution camps there are tons of complaints about censorship, refusal to address criticisms, provide data, share models and code, etc.), and whereas it's always possible to address criticisms, the other side is always willing to spend more money to poke new "holes" in the theory, and you'll just never win.
"Skeptics" like to portray the ultimate goal of science as if it's to continually try to poke holes in existing theories, because progress is made when theories are disproven. But that's not science. Science is when you mix a desire to poke holes in theories with a reasonable threshold of acceptance, a willingness to step back and say "Okay, we've spent a lot of energy coming up with arguments as to why this is wrong, and they've been addressed satisfactorily, so this is probably right, let's see if this takes us anywhere new rather than getting stuck arguing the point".
Climate skeptics lack the willingness, even in theory, to accept that enough is enough - I don't believe for one moment that there is, even in principle, any piece of evidence that would lessen the amount of criticism against AGW. I don't believe they would give in because we've already seen that no amount of evidence reduced the amount of anti-evolution noise, and it's by and large the same sources of funding and political motivation that's behind both movements.
Now, it very well may be the case that climate scientists also lack the willingness to admit that they're wrong (actually, I think this is pretty likely), in which case they're not doing science, either, and that's bad. I'm totally in agreement there.
But they're taking exactly the approach to the skeptics that they would (and arguably, should) be taking if they were doing proper science. So the way they deal with skeptics is not a point of evidence either for or against the honesty of their scientific investigations, it's merely an inevitable result of the politicization of their field.