You tell me! You are attempting to discredit peer-reviewed literature published by researchers from major universities with nothing more than a biased hunch that they are somehow compromised. You provide NO evidence other than it “could” be possible. If science could be legitimately discredited with your rationale then nothing could ever be trusted. Yet science makes the world go around as you inevitably type away on a device that is 100% the product of the system you attempt to challenge. You have provided no contrary evidence, just the possibility that these scientists MAY be part of some global multinational conspiracy. Your position is a joke believed by people too unsophisticated and unknowledgeable to know when they are out of their depths and when they should ****. But you have an opinion, and you found other idiots online with the same misguide opinion and so there must be something to it. The articles I posted show you are in a very small minority of those who know about climate science but it won’t matter because you don’t want to believe that them. That’s the differences between us - all I know about climate science is what the vast majority of climate scientists state. I know I don’t understand it in depth but when the vast majority of scientists come to a consensus it’s the best bet. You on the other hand believe you are capable of understanding and agreeing with a small tiny minority of scientists. I call ********…YOUR opinion isn’t worth the cost of the electrons you used to post your responses, not unless you have a PhD in climate science. Your opinion is a meaningless, as is mine, so I defer to the MAJORITY of experts.