A polar climate within the planetary spectrum between polar and
equatorial does not automatically mean a planet is colder with the
increasing gap between rotational inclination and the ecliptic
axis,after all,polar conditions refer to a latitudinal response to
rotational inclination and the greater inclination above zero,the
wider the swings.This is why it is crucial to shift emphasis away from
the older 'no tilt/no seasons' as ice sheet weather spread over
greater latitudes may be a feature of increasing inclination as a
response to a shift in inclination.

It is impossible to consider the fluctuations between the presence and
absence of ice sheet weather and its effects on the evolutionary
sciences of biology and geology without the spectrum so this is as
real as it gets.If there are a bunch of speculative modelers willing
to suffocate observations for their spurious conclusion that the Earth
is a greenhouse and humans have control over the temperature dial then
let them continue in their misguided way,a person with integrity can
look at the images of Uranus and can construct a picture where
inclination acts like a dial in determining planetary climate between
equatorial and polar.

The difference between genuine empiricism,albeit it only existed for a
very short period, which acts to draw analogies from the behavior of
objects at a human level and apply them to large scale behavior and
motions as opposed to the vicious strain of empiricism which
aggressively pursues modeling based on a homocentric framework and
announces that there are no differences between small and large scale
behavior is the total lack of restraint or physical considerations
when handling observations.Even though I know little of Kant,his
commentary on empiricism turned towards the present disgraceful
treatment of planetary climate is fairly accurate or indeed the root
cause of the problem that is a particular strain of late 17th century
Royal Society empiricism and especially Newton's agenda -

"it was nothing but the logic of illusion. It was a sophistic art of
giving to one’s ignorance, indeed even to one’s intentional tricks,
the outward appearance of truth, by imitating the thorough, accurate
method which logic always requires, and by using its topic as a cloak
for every empty assertion."