And another comment, which is important for me with my life-long interest in philosophy of science, is that at the end of the day, scientists are just people. Each one with their own needs and daily challenges. So I understand that so many scientists realized many years ago that there is far more money available in grants if you prostitute yourself a bit to provide some more "climate cough".
As a practicing scientist, this is my greatest point of dismay - the prostitution of some science in pursuit of in pursuit of a fundamentalist objective. I was going to say "follow the money", but I discovered that that was
just a movie construct. But its easy to see that if you are in the field, you need to publish in support of 'climate change' - if you don't, you won't get published, and you'll be professionally screwed, no matter how good your work. And if you are employed by the University of Townsville, you'll probably get sacked. The University of East Anglia e-mail scandal showed the ways the climate mafia went to suppress dissenting views in the academic press.
When you get there scientific papers released to co-incide with big global events, with media releases etc etc, to me, that's not science. Its turned into propaganda.
Al Gore said, notoriously, and repeatedly, "The Science is settled", and this got swallowed, and is still regurgitated. Science, almost by definition, is NEVER settled. Anyone from the science community here who agrees that 'science can be settled'?
The media have discovered this great new phrase "peer-review", while remaining clueless about what it means, how it can be abused and rendered meaningless. (I have experience with 'peer review' in scientific journals - I've written them ... I will recount some time.).
But as juddles says, most are just people trying to feed their family.