>scientists whose ideas fell outside the dogma recounted how, for decades, believers in the dominant hypothesis suppressed research on alternative ideas: They influenced what studies got published in top journals, which scientists got funded, who got tenure, and who got speaking slots at reputation-buffing scientific conferences
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.
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.