Money & Bad Science?
We sometimes hear the implication that global warming is just the perpetuation of bad science. Obviously, the scientific process isn’t perfect in any field (including those like medicine that have greatly improved modern life), but the peer review and assessment process doesn’t tend to lend itself to successful global-scale fraud. Work must be re-analyzed/independently replicated to be taken very seriously. There may be pressure to get interesting results, but in high-profile fields there’s also pressure to get it right or risk losing credibility (something most scientists value).
With such a contentious issue, and plenty of money on the fossil fuel side of the discourse, it surely wouldn’t take decades to uncover a major flaw in the concept of cumulative human influence. A flaw that would attract a lot of attention, for both the researchers involved and the media outlets that thrive on (and sometimes manufacture) controversy. And any significant natural phenomenon involved, along with refinement of regional climate projections, would also receive research funding. So even chasing grants (if that were a primary reason for getting into such a demanding career) wouldn’t require dedication to the human factor.
