Thank you for your kindness and consideration. But no offense taken. When I wrote that, I really did not expect anyone to take it seriously since it was all from memory of something I heard on the radio. And I will not be surprised, in the least, that what I heard was not exactly what was related. But what I "heard" fit nicely into my irritation of the whole subject. Some of the things I relate are from memory of what I might have read in articles while sitting at our local library. So, it's hard for me to pull out of my leaky head as to sources. I am waiting for @sil to start putting some note on my posts like "this post does not necessarily represent the views of Bad Voltage, or of anyone in their right mind."
I did appreciate you relating your experience with models. It jogged my memory as to the irritation I felt as that professor was relating his results with that model. I was thinking was it a day, week, month, year, decade that his results covered? Did he run the model and see how it predicted the preceding decade? Then he related the oil interests in the area of his university. So, how objective is that? What I would like to see, if it hasn't happened already, is that any model used be open source. That, in my mind, would be a hindrance to any temptation to manipulate the results.
I do see an agenda war here, and "science" is just a tool used to wage the war. But what you said about systemic problems reminded me of this item I heard on NPR, (wow, I managed to find the source!!) relating to depression therapy. What stood out to me from that story was:
"Of course, publication bias isn't limited to depression treatments. It's a widespread problem throughout the research world, says Kay Dickersin, a professor of epidemiology at Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health.
"We're rewarded for getting papers out, for finding results that will bring attention to our universities and to ourselves," she says. "We aren't rewarded for being honest; we're rewarded for making a splash."
"And that presents a challenge both to doctors and to their patients, Dickersin says. "I think the question that's really arisen is, how much of what's out there should we really believe."
That reminds me of an ancient saying: "Does not the ear test out words, as the tongue tastes food?" But, to probably my detriment, I tend not to believe anything I hear. At least, not until confirmed in some way. Even then, my skepticism remains, even if just a bit.
Anyway, thanks for the patience. Most tend to just ignore me as one would with that crazy old uncle that seems to be in everyone's family. And I'm fine with that!