tl;dr he died alone and poor in an insane asylum for being a science "heretic". Same freaking story as all the doctors who were silenced during this "pandemic". [1]
>Despite various publications of results where hand-washing reduced mortality to below 1%, Semmelweis's observations conflicted with the established scientific and medical opinions of the time and his ideas were rejected by the medical community. He could offer no theoretical explanation for his findings of reduced mortality due to hand-washing, and some doctors were offended at the suggestion that they should wash their hands and mocked him for it. In 1865, the increasingly outspoken Semmelweis allegedly suffered a nervous breakdown and was committed to an asylum by his colleagues. In the asylum he was beaten by the guards. He died 14 days later from a gangrenous wound on his right hand that may have been caused by the beating. His findings earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur confirmed the germ theory, giving Semmelweis' observations a theoretical explanation, and Joseph Lister, acting on Pasteur's research, practised and operated using hygienic methods, with great success.
ExxonMobil would be shouting it from the tops of the hills at every second of every day. The GOP would hold nonstop hearings for these researchers to present their work over and over and over. And I'm telling you that existing atmospheric science faculty would weep with joy over this news.
Most science works fine, this is one area where it is quite deranged.
I agree completely.
>Most science works fine, this is one area where it is quite deranged.
I disagree completely. The old saying, "science advances one funeral at a time" is still as true today as when it was coined.
The bonus is that there's so many other wins from transitioning away from fossil fuels.
While it isn't "remarkably easy" to publish what you want, even when it aligns with the establishment position, it is always infinitely harder to get what you want published when it conflicts with the establishment position (when it comes to "mainstream" publications).
They'd be a fucking hero. I know a few atmospheric science faculty. They are hyper distraught at the data. They'd love nothing more than to find out that actually we are going to be fine. Being able to keep burning coal for centuries would be a huge boon for reducing poverty worldwide. It'd be amazing. This hypothetical researcher would have among the most positive influences on human prosperity of any human to ever live.
Journals select for novel results that upend prior work. Strong analysis that demonstrated that the existing research is wrong would be front page cover of Science or Nature shit.
By declaring that there is a cabal that will silence quality research it allows people to dismiss the entire professional community without actually doing any work whatsoever.
> The litmus test is this: It would be remarkably easy to publish fake climate science if a scientist want to, say due to ideological reasons, since we've completely silenced the criticism machinery in this area.
What do you mean by fake? Could you throw together a bunch of fake numbers that match existing expectations and get that published? Sure, so long as it didn't get rejected for lack of novelty. But this is true for everything. I could read that falling objects accelerate at 9.8m/s2 in a book and decide to make up some observations that match this and submit that to a journal. This doesn't demonstrate that gravity is hokey. It just demonstrates that paper reviewers aren't especially well equipped to identify fraudulent observations.
Also, the number of grad students working their ass off trying to get their research published and getting their work rejected demonstrates pretty clearly that it is not "remarkably easy" to publish whatever you want as long as it aligns with the existing best thinking.