If only that were true. If you remember a few years ago, an experiment seemed to (incidentally) show particles travelling faster than the speed of light [1], which would have been an exception to Einstein's well established theory. The researchers, did not assert that their observation was valid, but instead were asking the wider community to help them find the flaw in their experiment. But just the remote possibility that there might be the obscurest of exceptions to the theory set the physics world abuzz. Had the observation been confirmed, the researchers would indeed be famous.

But in contrast, for example, studies have now effectively discredited the widespread and long-standing belief in the effectiveness of mammograms [2]. Are the authors of those studies rich and/or famous? Have we as a society redirected resources from executing and encouraging mammograms to potentially more effective solutions? Not really, I would say.

So why the discrepancy?

A number of reasons I'm sure, but imo the biggest factor is probably RTP (repeatably testable predictions). Fields of science where it's easy to make and test predictions tend to be very different (in quality) from fields where it is difficult/expensive/impossible to test predictions.

Guess which category climate science falls into?

The (not-yet-testable) long term predictions of the climate scientists may turn out to be right, but the shorter term testable ones have an unimpressive track record [3].

Genuine question: Does anyone here have confidence in the common agw claims based on their direct analysis of the data/science (rather than their analysis of the credibility of the parties)? If so, could you give a brief explanation?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faster-than-light_neutrino_ano...

[2] http://www.bmj.com/content/348/bmj.g366

[3] http://www.stat.washington.edu/peter/statclim/fyfeetal.pdf

bsder's argument depends specifically on the highly political nature of the climate change question, so mammograms aren't exactly a good comparison.

You don't work for NOAA as a scientist to become famous and rich. These are passion jobs. You get it from both sides. Publish something conservatives don't like, get hauled in front of congress to testify. Publish something environmentalist don't like get called a shill for the oil industry. Every side will twists your words and take statements out of context. Its pretty shitty how we treat our scientists.

Rotten! And sometimes your 'good news' won't even make it to the headlines in certain publications as in the following.

"NOAA’s Storm Prediction Center indicate that as of today, the total count for 2016 of US tornadoes are fewest in a calendar year since record-keeping began in 1954."