The problem with the Arctic melting isn't one particular result. It's that we have no frickin' idea what the range of effects could be or if they're bad. We may end up wasting a lot of resources trying to understand the myriad changes. But current theory at least suggests one common cause. The goal is to see if we can change the climate by changing carbon output. Don't we have to see how that plays out?

As to the abduction stage, the data absolutely has to be collected. Would any climate scientist say otherwise? The problem is if there are multiple competing hypotheses, and one has a clear set of tests, that's the one that will get funding and move forward. As it should. We can only test testable hypotheses. Those that require more data until tests can be developed will inherently lag behind. Not only is that the way science works, it's only way it could work.

That's what I don't understand about where you're coming from. You believe in the scientific method but with concerns about how humans practice it. You also believe that some hypotheses don't have enough data to support specific tests. But how does that take you to rejecting current efforts? That is science and it is hypothesis testing. If the hypotheses are wrong, climate scientists will need to come up with new hypotheses. Sure, many will die clinging to the old ones. But the new generation will be forced to do so - to publish, gets grants, be honored faculty, etc. There's a club but there is wide latitude to question prevailing logic even if it sometimes takes decades. It's an entrepreneurship of ideas.

As for politics, I'll go so far to say that a representative democracy helps to correct Science and her focus through funding priorities. It makes science somewhat accountable to the will of the people. You could still do science in a fascist regime. But you'd end up with eugenics and human testing without informed consent. That doesn't mean the Western system is perfect. Not at all. I just have a hard time thinking about how it could be better. It may be a bad feedback loop, but it isn't a closed one.

Your oaths are a good idea. But I think they're unnecessary. Good science replicates. It's really that simple. If experimental outcomes aren't repeatable that scientific line of thought withers and dies. You can continue to pump in funding, but sooner or later the priorities change and, sure, sometimes for the worse.

The same is true of the current approach to climate change. If we control or reduce worldwide carbon output and we see climate changes back closer toward the early 20th c. then the assumptions in the carbon "theory" will be strengthen. If we don't, it won't. Carbon output won't be the theory. That process may take a generation or three, but it will play itself out. Without an alternative testable hypothesis, what else can we do until we discover one?

To come back to one possibility. Suppose you're right that cloud cover is a big part of climate change. Now suppose that Sadir Smith invents device in his garage that takes the humidity in clouds and turns it into fresh water and using solar power. The more the device clears the clouds the more it's able to generate its own power. Fresh water. Fewer clouds. No more carbon. Don't you think an enterprising scientist will see this and start to study its effects on the local climate? Won't another scientist try to expand the program internationally? Soon there will be conferences and journals devoted to "cloud hydration".

I think a big part of the problem is we're witnessing the creation of a new form of science and one that no seems to understand. But that's exactly it. We won't understand this science until we do science. Testing hypotheses is the only way to do science.