Hafar1014
Diamond Member
- Sep 1, 2010
- 12,829
- 11,638
- 2,128
Remember all those scientists who signed a paper supporting the covid virus came from an animal which was 100% false and they knew it. They were threatened by Fauci to never get fundung fir their research if they didnt sign.The incentive structure in science actually runs in the opposite direction of what you’re describing. Consensus is not where careers are made; consensus is where papers get ignored. If you want status, funding, and citations, the highest-reward move is to overturn an existing model with better data or a better explanation. That’s how you become famous in science. Every major scientific breakthrough, plate tectonics, relativity, germ theory, heliocentrism, came from people contradicting the dominant view and being rewarded for it once the evidence held up.
A young climate scientist who could convincingly show that AGW is wrong would instantly become one of the most famous scientists on Earth. That is not a suppressed career path; it’s the golden ticket. The reason that hasn’t happened isn’t sociological, it’s empirical: the data keeps converging.
That’s not a narrative bubble, it’s distributed replication. And the “underpaid” part actually undercuts the conspiracy. If people were chasing money and hero status, they’d be in finance, tech, or industry, not publishing incremental papers on atmospheric chemistry. What you’re seeing isn’t a cult maintaining consensus; it’s a field where the easiest way to stand out would be to break it, and no one has managed to do so with evidence that survives contact with reality.
Science is easily corrupted and climate change science is corrupt the same way. No funding unless you agree to the fraud