> Not quite in topic, but Is it really such a stretch to acknowledge that the same forces in academia might bias climate science too? Except as another commente

> Not quite in topic, but Is it really such a stretch to acknowledge that the same forces in academia might bias climate science too? Except as another commenter pointed out, it doesn't take a shadowy cabal. Just a strong trend that individuals can believe in for ethical or moral reasons. Even when it becomes dogmatic. Sure, but bear in mind that in the case of the amyloid plaque hypothesis, there wasn't really any bad science going on. It's not as if false results were being published (after all the drugs kept failing in trials); the problem is simply that too many resources were focused on research based on a hypothesis that didn't pan out. Unfortunately, if there was something similar happening with climate change that would still mean that all the published results are correct and climate change is real, but maybe too much effort is being spent on solutions that aren't realistic (e.g. carbon capture).