Dear John,

«but to the attempt to generalise that prudence into an explanatory principle about contested domains. That move is epistemic, whether intended or not.»

Avoiding to get one's head in a sick person's bed is 100% sensible prudence and 0% an epistemic claim.
(and I think we already agreed earlier that the patient in bed is sick)

«But that is a personal boundary decision, not a basis for exempting an entire subject from epistemic scrutiny or recasting disengagement as virtue.»

Correct, except that I never suggested the above.
Nothing stops the learned scientists from researching and debating climate among themselves.
Nothing about my disengagement is related to epistemology.

Some fools here have fallen into your trap of discussing climate.
They are not climatologists and have neither your education nor your I.Q. (nor as I suspect but cannot prove, your interdisciplinary support-network).

They are your low-hanging fruit. Big deal: show the natives some shining glass trinkets and fireworks and they will believe you to be god, or at least one of their ancestors.

Beat them at science - and gain their souls.
Other smart crooks achieved the same with cards or dice.

They are blind - and you use it to put stumbling blocks in front of them.

«epistemic standards are not situational hazards that become weapons»

Red herring: you weren't lecturing here to the above fools about epistemic standards, but about climate.
I do not avoid discussing epistemic standards either, should the matter be raised.

«Tone has no bearing on the substance of my critique.»

Certainly not the substance, but tone has bearing on your intentions for using critique.

«grievance over framing and tone, which is usually happens when one side of a debate feels their position has collapsed.»

A common generalisation fallacy, because "usually" is quite different than "always".

Indeed, framing and tone USUALLY say nothing about the objective contents...
except when the discussion is about motives - and my response was precisely in reply to your claim that: «At this point, the discussion has moved away from analysis and into attribution of motives I do not hold.»

Yuyutsu,

Your last reply crosses a line, and overwhelmingly demonstrates what was only starting to become apparent earlier: panic after the collapse of a structural worldview inconsistency.

Accusations of manipulation, exploitation, "gaining souls", or treating others as "fools" are not arguments. They are moralised projections that you have not demonstrated, and I reject them entirely.

I have not insulted other participants, questioned their intelligence, or attributed predatory intent to anyone. I've addressed claims and structures of reasoning in my communication with you, nothing more.

At this point, the discussion has moved fully away from civil analysis and into personal accusation. I have no interest in continuing on those terms.

I though much better of you than this. This is a genuinely shocking and disappointing surprise.

Do better.