Cannonball;c-58880 wrote
tedede;c-58878 wroteIs a peer review by likeminded peers actually a review?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1420798/

I couldn't read much of the NYT article because it was behind a paywall but I will read the paper.

Do you consider questioning the science as being "dismissive" of it?

Please re-read what I wrote before you speculate:
I'm not convinced the rate of change isn't being manipulated
Perhaps I should have said "manipulated by some".

Do you believe there is zero bias on this topic in the scientific community?
My personal experience of the peer-review process (as both an author and a reviewer) is that "like-minded" is never part of the process. You might be confusing having "relevant scientific expertise" with being "like-minded". While the latter would be an echo chamber (which I think is what you are suggesting) the former is necessary for critical review of methods and conclusions. In my experience the review process is extremely critical and thorough. If methods and conclusions aren't sound the article gets rejected. This happens a LOT.

Bias is a pretty general general term. I think you're asking if scientists are offering biased conclusions based on financial pressures (correct me if I'm wrong). I honestly don't think that is true to any significant extent (as a scientist, I can't bring myself to say "zero"). The new Harvard study really gets at that. The Exxon scientists have no financial motive to arrive at conclusions that support emissions-created climate change. If anything you could imagine/assume that they'd have pressure to be biased in the opposite direction. But that hasn't happened. What has happened is the non scientists with financial motives ignored or suppressed the conclusions if their own internal scientists and offered a VERY biased message to the public. And that has been my personal experience as well. I've done a ton of scientific work for most of the major oil companies. I've never been pressured to bias my work or my findings even when they were highly unfavorable to my clients. They are typically very interested in knowing every bit of the real facts. And of course, if I did ever receive pressure to bias my results I'd tell them to piss right off. What these companies do with our/my reports is a completely different story and out of my control.

There is, of course, real bias that exists and which is completely necessary, expected, and appropriate. This real bias gets confused with the perceived bias that (I think) you're alluding to above (again correct me if I'm wrong). This necessary bias is that things which are important get the most attention/funding. A non-science example is that communities who live in forest fire zones bias their emergency response funding towards fire prevention and suppression. Communities that live on the coast bias their funding towards flood protection. In science, issues like cancer research or climate change research get a biased amount of funding due to their importance. This creates a "perception" that the results must be biased since there is so much funding and value at stake. So yeah, climate scientists as a whole may be getting some very large funding numbers, but that shouldn't be confused with some sort of "get rich" boondoggle by the scientific community or by individual scientists which creates bias in conclusions. It just takes money to get the work done.

So while we have already agreed, in this thread, that the rate of change may be manipulated for political/financial purposes, I STRONGLY disagree that it is happening to any significant degree within the scientific community.

Appreciate your insight views, however, it is becoming more clear almost every day now, that COVID and its various entities from vaccination benefits/risks/efficacy/side effects/etc has completely bastardized true objective science, where discourse is/was encouraged as a way to objectively back up one's hypothesis, over just being an authoritarian talking point to scare the public, up until the true, objective science, that can no longer be denied, takes over to change the narrative, but is never acknowledged to have been "wrong" before.

The last 3+ years have set the trust I'm science across the board in the eyes of many back decades, if not a century or 2, and its all over political ideology and power. And that should disgust EVERYONE!