For some years now we’ve been led to believe by global warmists that their evidence is unchallengeable and that anyone who disagrees is a flat-earther or a shill for the oil and coal companies. “It’s settled science,” the mantra by all warmist quacks, including Al Gore.

Maybe they all missed that first-year-grad-school course in the scientific method. If so, they can take a cue from their colleagues in the area of astrobiology. After one scientist, Dr. Richard B. Hoover, an astrobiologist with NASA’s Marshall Space Flight Center, published a study yesterday saying he had found evidence of life on other planets, note the difference between the reactions in that scientific community as opposed to the one in the global warmist community.

One scientist, Dr. David Marais, an astrobiologist with NASA’s AMES Research Center, was downright skeptical of the reports:

These kinds of claims have been made before, he noted — and found to be false.

“It’s an extraordinary claim, and thus I’ll need extraordinary evidence,” Marais said.

Did those who believe Hoover’s paper excoriate Marais, or call him a shill for some moneyed interest? Did they imply that he was not a “real” scientist, as the global warmists do with critics and skeptics? No. They had this mature and scientifically valid reaction:

Knowing that the study will be controversial, the journal invited members of the scientific community to analyze the results and to write critical commentaries ahead of time. Though none are online yet, those comments will be posted alongside the article, said Dr. Rudy Schild, a scientist with the Harvard-Smithsonian’s Center for Astrophysics and the editor-in-chief of the Journal of Cosmology.

“Given the controversial nature of his discovery, we have invited 100 experts and have issued a general invitation to over 5,000 scientists from the scientific community to review the paper and to offer their critical analysis,” Schild wrote in an editor’s note along with the article. “No other paper in the history of science has undergone such a thorough vetting, and never before in the history of science has the scientific community been given the opportunity to critically analyze an important research paper before it is published, he wrote.”

Global warmists need to learn from this, but I doubt they will.