>If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no? That's a dangerous way to think. Isn't data fraud, particularly when

>If this were important, surely some scientist would have found holes in the theories no? That's a dangerous way to think. Isn't data fraud, particularly when in line with an alleged agenda, something that should be vexing? You don't think it's possible that the same shunning that occurs in non academic settings towards deniers might occur in the sciences? In which case perhaps scientists aren't willing to risk careers and funding to go against the grain, if they are even concious of any bias. I imagine most young people are entering into this field now treating agw as confirmed fact. And if you combine that with the all of the ways in which the scientific institution is currently broken (p value abuse/misuse, publish or perish, reproducibility crisis), it's very possible for an artificial, or massaged, narrative to come to dominate discourse even if it isn't quite true...