Well let's see if I sprain my cerebellum with this one. Why is it there a lack of good research into critiques of anthropogenic climate change and its subseque

Well let's see if I sprain my cerebellum with this one. Why is it there a lack of good research into critiques of anthropogenic climate change and its subsequent ill effects? I would expect some kind of rigorous evaluation on at least the net positive or negative effects of climate change in top climate journals. However, I do not hear about this type of discussion. A lot of the publish science seems to serve only to confirm the consensus. Is this actually a good application of the scientific method or just humans circling the metaphorical may-pole? What is worrying is that established researchers who have pushed back against this narrative have been brought low by their peers despite any good standing they may have had prior. Of course the usual suspects will have their own agenda and money to subsidize it, but why is this the highest quality critique of climate change that exists? I would expect, if we are in fact doing 'science', that the highest qualities critique would come from top researchers who would still be respected in their field even after publishing such critique. The stark lack of dissent may be simply a media narrative around science reporting. However, I have this ignorable itch at the base of my skull that what is being passed off as 'climate science' may in fact be the 'climate-science bureaucracy'; thus I remain skeptical. Hopefully this is not a too disgraceful display of my mental flexibility.