> There should be consequences for the people who publish these things.
The question you pose here isn't whether or not something is "good science", it's about who gets to decide what constitutes "good science" and "bad science".
Science has been able to handle itself quite well over the centuries since it has come into existence. Publishing something, in your name, as these authors have done, is an implicit declaration of what you phrased as "I'm willing to stake my reputation on the idea this trend is real and will continue".
The spirit of free inquiry, on which science is based, demands that we hold nothing sacred and immune from questions. Good science, almost by definition, requires "bad science".
Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.
The question you pose here isn't whether or not something is "good science", it's about who gets to decide what constitutes "good science" and "bad science".
Science has been able to handle itself quite well over the centuries since it has come into existence. Publishing something, in your name, as these authors have done, is an implicit declaration of what you phrased as "I'm willing to stake my reputation on the idea this trend is real and will continue".
The spirit of free inquiry, on which science is based, demands that we hold nothing sacred and immune from questions. Good science, almost by definition, requires "bad science".
Be careful what you wish for, because you just might get it.