The Climate of Science and the Science of Climate

It will be nice when the climate of science catches up with the real science of climate;

David Robb ——Bio and Archives--May 19, 2026

Cover Story | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

It has been said that the worst thing to happen to science is that it became a profession. When you depend on someone else for your livelihood, you are expected to avoid expressing disagreement, and to support their goals and objectives. Don't make waves, do as you're told, and you might keep your job. These expectations are as true in science as in any other occupation.

The idea of scientists as independent researchers boldly going forth is largely romantic fiction today

Most scientists today have one of two employers—industry, or universities. Scientists in industry are paid to develop new technologies, refine existing ones, and avoid controversy. Most university scientists are compensated partly by the university, and partly by research grants from governments.

The idea of scientists as independent researchers boldly going forth to investigate new fields and make revolutionary new discoveries is largely romantic fiction today.

Universities exercise fairly tight control over researchers, including threat of withholding tenure. Granting agencies specify what sorts of research they will fund, and often indicate the results they would like to get from the research. Grant awards are often made taking into account how well researchers have performed in meeting requirements in the past. Unless someone wants to spend a short career teaching freshman science courses, one quickly learns to give the customer what they want.

In addition, researchers are evaluated on the number of research papers they have published. An author submits a paper to a scientific journal for publication. The journal editor, in the process known as "peer review" sends copies of the submission to other researchers in the field who have agreed to be reviewers. Many of these reviewers are competitors with the author for the same grant funds. The reviewers evaluate the paper and return their comments to the editor who will decide if the paper will be published or not. Reviewer comments can make or break a paper.

Carbon dioxide was seen as the root cause of almost every environmental problem, either directly, or indirectly

Too often, reviewers evaluate the paper for conformity to "established" science, making sure that currently fashionable views are not seriously challenged. Many good papers challenging Covid dogma were refused publication just a few short years ago because they raised........

© Canada Free Press