I agree that the conflict of interest definitely raises the bar. But of course, that's what I immediately hear from my conservative friends as well: that papers

I agree that the conflict of interest definitely raises the bar. But of course, that's what I immediately hear from my conservative friends as well: that papers which support the consensus are more likely to be published, that studies likely to confirm the consensus are more likely to be funded, and researchers who question that consensus are likely to be blackballed by their colleagues. Not being on the inside, I don't have any special insight as to whether or how strong the dynamic operates, of course. Which means that as an non-scientist, I sometimes feel like I'm in a pretty poor state to actually know what's true. Like I said, my instinct is to respect the consensus. But the evidence seems to have increased over the last decade or so that "consensus" can be a pretty poor pointer to the truth. And I want to take that evidence into account as well.