Prof. Happer criticizes the politicization of climate research and the lack of integrity in the field, saying that scientists are often driven by funding instead of pure science, which leads to "terror" in the scientific community. The physicist opts for the introduction of critique teams (red teams) to verify scientific findings on climate to improve the integrity and credibility of this area of science. Happer also discusses the need to fill key positions in the administration with people who have practical experience. Climate science differs significantly from other areas of science in the political sphere in several key respects, including the motivation of scientists, scientific integrity and the verification process. Here are the main differences outlined in the source material: Motivation and attitude of scientists: As early as the 1990s, it was noted that climate scientists were different from particle physicists or human genome researchers. While scientists in other fields were excited about their work for the sake of science itself, many climate researchers were mainly concerned about funding for the next year and how politicians like Al Gore viewed them. They were also more defensive when asked questions about the calibration of their research, for example. This tendency has worsened over time. Politicization and honesty: It is argued that the closer science gets to politics and big money, the less honest it becomes. Fields that are not as politicized, such as theoretical physics, for example, generally maintain integrity. Climate science, on the other hand, like fusion research, has been heavily politicized. It is believed that there has been such a decline in integrity in the climate field that it might be a good idea to bring in experts from other, less affected scientific fields. Lack of critical verification ("Red Team"): The most important difference is the lack of a formal review process by a so-called "red team" (red team). Other important fields, such as the development of weapons systems (e.g., fighters or submarines), use rigorous review by "red teams." This involves a knowledgeable opponent asking tough questions to find flaws that the developers of the project may not recognize. Even the CIA has used similar methods. Climate science is presented as "the only major public effort that has never had a red team." Suppression of criticism and personal costs: Instead of submitting to critical review, the climate science community is accused of actively suppressing criticism. This is compared to Roman tactics, where they "create a desert and call it peace" - by eliminating all opposition, the illusion of consensus is created. Those who express doubts publicly face huge personal costs, including death threats directed at them and their families, and acts of vandalism, such as the shelling of one scientist's office. Comparison to Lysenkoism: The state of climate science is compared to the situation of biology in the Soviet Union under Lysenko, where real science was suppressed for more than 30 years and the field was "completely corrupted by crooks" supported by the political authorities. This suggests that scientific renewal in climatology will be a difficult and lengthy process that could take decades.