Global warming, in particular, points to a weakness in the peer review process. The only people qualified to review a global warming study are scientists who themselves are involved in global warming studies, and whose funding is dependent upon global warming continuing to be considered a crisis.
Science is now just another kind of prostitution. The scientist is in the business of getting funding grants, and his ability to continue getting grants is dependent upon him giving the results that grant issuers approve of. A peer reviewer risks his own funding if he gives a bad review to a study which his funders approve of.
Yep, not much different. There are some people who will defend the scientific community, but overall I am disgusted by what science puts its name on. I am only an engineer by degree though, so what do i know.