According to Skeptics' standards, the question is an answer already, as the research in question is made by [a] most respectable institution and published as peer-reviewed paper in respectable journal.
This was a comment in relation to Do the recent CLOUD results have significant implications for global warming?
I'm trying to understand the votes-to-close this question. Is the problem that I was asking for an expert opinion on the import of the study?
I have a claim that this study is vastly important; the venue in which that claim was made makes me skeptical. I read the summary and abstract trying to do due diligence. Especially given the politically-motivated subject, it seemed to me the sort of thing for which "skeptical" responses were perfect: closely examined but allowing for a conclusion (that is, a skeptic is surely allowed more flexibility than the scientist bound in by the four walls of the paper).
I understand that "climate change" + "skeptic" is a politicized term, which might make it an important area in which to police the bounds of policy; would the same question structure in a less politicized area be as likely to be closed?