I have studied relationships among a few "higher" education facilities which comment on global warming. An innocent reader cannot comprehend the frenzied level of activity required to be published, and respected among "peers".
Quote marks on peers because they all "think" they are better than each other (I guess I like quote marks).
An imaginary mathematical model to illustrate might be for every published report it is hundred-fold the number of reviewers, contributor$, plane and train trip$ to present and solicit fund$, and meetings to maintain, build, and present, accolade$$ "earned" and bought to even be considered for worthiness of publication.
As smart as we might think ourselves to be, if one ever wanted to join that cadre of the published in academia, well, you might as well cut the old growth forests down and mine and burn the coal and oil yourself. More efficient. 
Alternatively, you can comment on The Herald without that particular environmental impact, but who would read it?