Do you have any idea how unearthly desperate you sound, trying to come up with "alternative interpretations" to refute the NAS' conclusions while using the very same NAS data from the very same report? What on earth do you expect to achieve?
Honestly, there is a limit to how much nonsense I can cope with.
Science isn't magic, anyone can do it under the right circumstances.Here is how science works *in general:
1) Scientist #1 reads peer-reviewed literature
2) Scientist #1 comes up with an idea based on this literature
3) Scientist #1 uses a small amount of funds they have to generate preliminary evidence. Thus indicating their idea has merit, and they are capable of performing the experiment.
4) Scientist #1 writes up a grant proposal and submits it to funding agencies
5) Other scientists (usually 2-4
) review this proposal (along with many others) and score it based on funding agency guidelines and their subjective
6) Grants with the best scores get funded with large amount of money.
7) Scientist #1 uses grant money to perform larger scale experiment
8) The data generated by the larger scale experiment is analyzed and interpreted by scientist #1
9) Scientist #1 writes a report describing how the data was analyzed, what previous publications say about related data, and his/her interpretations of the results in light of other work and general knowledge about the world.
10) This report is submitted to various peer reviewed journals
11) Other scientists (usually 2-4)
review this report (along with many others) and critique it according to journal guidelines and subjective
12) Scientist #1's report meets the subjective
criteria of the reviewers and is published
13) Scientist #2 reads this report (along with many others)
14) Scientist #2 comes up with a new idea based on the now updated literature. This can be either an alternative to scientist #1's conclusions or supporting them.
....Cycle repeats, etc.So what is stopping "just anyone" from being a published scientist?
1) The ability to come with an idea considered worth studying by funding agencies and other people in the field
to the equipment and technical expertise to generate preliminary data.
3) The ability to come up with money to generate preliminary results.
4) The ability to convince
funding agencies that your work has merit, your experimental design controls for confounds, and you are the best suited to perform the work.
5) The ability to interpret your results in a way that satisfies journal reviewers. (account for confounds, etc)
Edit= I have emphasized the steps most vulnerable to political contamination with italics