Suppose Richard and Bart both make the same important scientific discovery, but....?
Richard made his discovery by working long hours in his laboratory, making careful scientific observations that he analyzed to make his discovery.
But Bart made the same discovery by breaking into another scientist's office and finding out that scientist had already discovered the same thing Richard did, but it conflicted with his political agenda so he concealed the discovery. In fact, he committed fraud by going public with falsified evidence and presenting the exact opposite conclusion from what he had actually discovered.
When Richard and Bart both reveal their discoveries to the public, the mainstream press totally ignores Richard, but Bart is put in the headlines and receives international attention.
Why would the press totally ignore Richard, who made is discovery by honest hard work, while giving so much attention to Bart, who committed a crime and just stole his discovery?
The Climate Science Isn't Settled
"...articles from major modeling centers acknowledged that the failure of these models to anticipate the absence of warming for the past dozen years was due to the failure of these models to account for this natural internal variability. Thus even the basis for the weak IPCC argument for anthropogenic climate change was shown to be false."
"Mr. Lindzen is professor of meteorology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology"
Yes, I know the link doesn't work. Go to the WSJ site and do a news search on the title.
And if there's one finding that agrees with a theory, you can just ignore all the other findings that don't agree with the theory?
Perhaps you should review the case of the Hubble Space Telescope mirror, which was launched after failing two out of three tests - but they launched it because it passed one of the tests.
Bad science, threegoofs.