Some inhabitants of the Ivory Tower are using peer review – a process that helps scholarly journals decide what to print – as a shield to hide behind. Delegitimizing public input about publicly-funded science is arrogant and counterproductive.
Academics insist that peer-reviewed research is sound and that everything else is inferior. But scholarly journals are actually littered with muck.
If it’s OK for scientists to lie to advance the fight against climate change what other bad behaviour is acceptable?