If Hollywood movies are your science guide, outer space is populated primarily by hot vampire girl aliens and time travel is not only possible, but chicks will dig you more, the same way women today would like a man in a powdered wig and no bath for three days if he suddenly appeared from 1811.(1)

Science hates to be a buzzkill but often must - having sex with someone from the future might shorten your lifespan, thanks to antagonistic coevolution.

When is a multi-million dollar business that charges money before a science article can be seen by the public superior to another multi-million dollar business that charges money before a science article can be seen by the public? 

Apparently only if they claim to be non-profit.

Scientists are not business people so it is easy to understand why anyone would confuse non-profit status with "doesn't make money".   They all want to make money.   So if one publisher can charge you $1,200 to buy out the copyright and another charges readers $150 to read science, who is superior?

It basically only depends on who you like.   

For climate scientists to make positive inroads in policy regarding a problem we know is only going to get worse - pollution and climate change - they need to police the actions of a few in their circle, most notably the very loud.

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has existed for over two decades now - they are not new to politics and this is not gotcha journalism from WikiLeaks; they have also already been implicated by an independent commission created by the United Nations for their use of 'gray' literature published as data and for ignoring commentary on what studies it uses in reports.

Science can't catch a break this week.   A site devoted to ridiculing Democrats is faux outraged that the NIH funded $3.6 million to study the menstruation cycles of rhesus monkeys on any number of addictive drugs.