[neverevergiveup]

One of the biggest problems in science is that the editors and editorial boards of lots of major journals are compromised by ‘connections’ and fear of ‘celebrity’ scientists. Further, it’s more important to them that they have ‘exciting’ science than good/accurate science. Science and Nature are two of the most visible journals with this problem.

[glasseye]

I have a BS in Biology and I was schooled before the ‘agenda science’ became a thing.
The ‘scientific method’ is HARD, it demands principled observation, formulation of theory and then an eager willingness to self falsify any lacking theory to allow you to move on the the next, more perfect theory.
These people are ‘research grant whores’.
And the ironic/funny part is we are entering a cooler period which will be problematic food resource wise.

[hinckley buzzard]

The problem is that due to the overwhelming volume of submissions, any semblance of the once standard “peer review” process is long dead. In small clannish fields like “climate science” the rule is now not peer review but pal review.

They all know each other, and there is great mutual backscratching taking the place of critical evaluation.