I was just pointing out the incorrect logic of the comment:

If you believe they’re biased, removing them is removing false legitimacy from biased content — something the government has an interest in. And no different than a journal retracting a flawed paper.

And since you want to discuss “fair argument”: there’s an obvious difference between allowing discourse on a public forum and publishing as an institution.

▲

cosmicgadget a day ago | parent [-]

Journals remove papers that break rules, e.g. fabricating data or boning your postdocs. You seem to be waving at all of climate science and saying they all fail the same scrutiny. And you use the vaguest possible accusation: "they have bias", something that could be said or every scientific paper.

▲

zmgsabst 17 hours ago | parent [-]

I’m not making any claim, but it’s clear the people accused of removing them feel the bias delegitimizes the results — so the OP’s logic is incorrect. As I originally said.

Also, factually, they’re merely transferring the website to a different department, so this whole argument is moot.

	▲	cosmicgadget 16 hours ago \| parent [-]
		I hope it's true that the hosting duties are simply passed to NASA. Surely you've seen enough in the past six months to not assume the stated plan is their actual intention.