Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?

[pineapplebunnybounce]

If you spent time and money (a lot of money) doing research and then end up not publishing, you are hurting your own career.

And yet it's a recognised problem in medical research (both the researchers and the journals are at fault) which even has a term to describe it. See "publication bias"

Publication bias is when they've found nothing, or think they've found nothing and therefore it's not worth publishing. Not because they're "afraid". I think if someone found opposing data on global warming they wouldn't think they've found nothing.

Opposing evidence shows up in science all the time, people aren't afraid to publish things like that. I'm really not getting this, who are they afraid of? If your data doesn't go along with what other people think is going on what does that have to do with your beliefs? Why would you be a denier if your data doesn't agree with consensus?

ETA: I'm also quite confused what this has to do with global warming. Are you saying because there is publication bias we cannot accept any data on the climate and anthropogenic effects? Because then you have to apply that standard across the board.