Originally Posted by aerohead
It's a good point to make,and when I think about it,I have to assign conditions/context for differing views.
I believe that some researchers get a hold of some idea and won't let go,even if it doesn't ultimately pan out.People do that.
Some are financed by the fossil-fuel industry,via institutes,some universities, foundations,and fake,non-juried,non-peer-reviewed,science journals,lending their academic credentials,to 'dignify' what otherwise would pass as pseudo-science.There are probably more fake journals now than real ones.
And then you have the 'consensus.' National laboratory folks,university Ph.D.s and their graduate students,maybe even undergrads now,scrapping for funding,just driven by curiosity,and a sense of urgency to solve problems a lot of people don't know they even have.
Reading the actual research papers gives insight into the depths these people will go to,to ferret out some formerly,unknown aspect of Earth science. It's very multidisciplinary in nature,with a lot of cross-pollination of ideas and networking.It's some of the most interesting stuff I've ever laid eyes on.And they're required to share their data as a condition of publishing,plus provide all their methods.It's open,transparent.Referees may require many modifications of a submission before they'll accept it for publication,as the audience could be anyone,and the language needs to be gauged accordingly.
I won't read the IPCC stuff.It's at least one-degree removed from the actual research. I prefer to read the materials straight,no chaser.
Science is probably never 'settled',but I think they achieve a degree of probability which gives them enough confidence to go before Congress and make policy recommendations.
I feel like their sentries,or sentinels,watching my back,doing all the intel,warning about enemies at our gate.I'm really glad they're out there.
|