> Then find and read the other papers, science is made in this way I wish. Science is made based on funding and grants. Those deciding what to fund are after

> Then find and read the other papers, science is made in this way I wish. Science is made based on funding and grants. Those deciding what to fund are after conclusions supporting political or business objectives. Simple example: Run a search for papers in support of all kinds of hairbrained schemes to "save the planet". Then run a search for papers explaining that this is a fantasy and we can't affect climate and other factors at a planetary scale. You'll find thousands of the first type and, maybe, a dozen, if that, of the second. Why? Is it because there is no science in support of the second perspective? No. Not even close. In fact, there's overwhelming science --even going down to basic Physics-- in support of it. However, all funding has been going towards supporting a narrative that can, in turn, support political and business strategies. A researcher who dares swim against this massive current will quickly find that driving an Uber might be the only profitable career path he/she might have left. Or, they jump into the funding river, swim with the current and have a life. Yes, sure, when I was a kid I was taught that science was this virtuous thing where facts reigned supreme. Not a little kid any more.