There are a lot of people whose understanding of science entails two opponents slinging examples at each other. Examples of papers, websites, news articles that were cherry-picked to confirm a view
They start with an opinion, then look for confirmatory evidence.
They think that this is how science is done, and that"looking for evidence" is the essence of science.
Mostly what it does is entrench false beliefs, bias
In this view, a rugged individual is the only font of knowledge, and the epitome of science rigor is solitary research
In most cases, unless one is an expert in a field, and often a sub speciality of a field, much of the content of a paper is inscrutable. One doesn't know the issues, language, or methods in use
I could explore the text in a Gadamerian sense, but not which is correct
So how do I know if climate change is real?
Comparing papers and speakers is of little use. Becoming expert in the field is too costly. Who to trust?
Thousands of research projects funnel up through a clunky selection and review process, and get published in myriad journals, colloquia, conferences, etc
The results are the best guess on any scientific question available bar none
The efficient and effective method for me to know the answer to "what's up with climate change" is to ignore papers, speakers, etc, and go directly to NAS
As clunky, leaky, and creaking as the industry of scientific knowledge is, it is still far superior to mine
Its the Science Zen thing to do