Expert credibility in climate change
an article in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (PNAS)
Just to make sure I have this correctly:
People who study climate like to have an income.
The income comes mostly from the government.
The government "grants" income if the answer is what they want (not being scientists, facts and evidence are not an issue of consequence to politics and revenue).
If you don't have the right answer, you don't get grants (economic forcing?).
If you don't get grants, you don't get published.
Leading to fewer grants, thereby having negative feedback on "prominence," reputation and credibility.
Or you go study something else because food and shelter are good things.
Therefore, you aren't qualified to debate the matter, having failed to develop relevant expertise, like railroad engineering for example.
Do I have this right? Just checking.
Aussie Government Broadcaster Gives Climate Skeptics Airtime
39 minutes ago