LOL. Print this post out and put in a bottle or metal box to preserve the paper. Make it a heirloom to be passed down through the generations of your family, to be read only by your family members who are great grandchildren, or whomever it is in 2100. Let's just assume it's great grandchildren. You'll be long dead of course, but your great grandkids will certainly read this with great interest and disappointment.Unfortunately this isn't accurate. Researchers at universities are pressured to get grants and publish to enhance the prestige of their university. Their jobs are at risk if they do not have tenure. What gets published is up to editors; what gets grants is up to politicians (not always but often).
[Side note: publicly-funded research should not be behind paywalls. Academic journals are -- sadly -- driven by profits and not science.]
With regards to global warming, for a very long while, if you wanted grants in natural sciences, it had to be tied to global warming, and if you wanted to get published, it had to show manmade doom and gloom. Research that showed neutral or positive outcomes (or suggested global warming isn't manmade) wasn't published. Now, because scientist after scientist across many fields all agree global warming is the greatest threat to humanity, research that goes against the narrative doesn't pass peer review even if it gets past the editors.
I agree. Enough has been said. You've quoted a whopping two sources. The first is authored by a self proclaimed academically credentialess environmentalist.
Exactly. Some researchers and scientists might be driven by a love of data and the scientific method, but the people that fund them aren't. Papers get buried. It's a nice, romantic thought that science is pure and above the petty squabbles of politics and funding. I wish it were true.What get's grants is often up to organizations with ideology and criteria across both sides of the aisle
There are countless examples of papers that were published in well-respected journals that were later found out to be a bunch of nonsense -- no damage done to the journal, as people accept journals (just like news) sometimes rush to publish and be first, and it's difficult to find peer reviewers. Peer reviewers don't get notoriety, peer reviewing takes precious time away from their own research, and honestly sometimes there aren't enough peers to review something new.Journals may be in the business of selling content---fair. But that journal's reputation would suffer irreparable harm if they put forth research that didn't follow rigorous protocol.