which true, but not empirically. being able to cite data from actual research from professionals is so valuable and far better than anecdotes or guesses.

While its certainly helpful to get the raw numbers down on paper, you don't need a filing cabinet full of documents to recognize that fossil fuel consuming electricity producers and airliners and manufacturing centers the but-for cause of climate change. Fossil Fuel goes in. Carbon emissions come out.

We can definitely use a more meticulous bit of R&D to find exactly where and when these emissions peak, in order to reduce total emissions without sacrificing an abundance of economic productivity. But "did you know burning the fuel makes the pollution?" isn't a shocking conclusion.

Where things get annoying (and where in-depth research genuinely comes in handy) is in the functional policy that follows this recognition. Once you know a widget factory in China is 10x less efficient than its counterpart in the US, you can formulate a trade law to limit imports contingent on reform. But as soon as you start impacting some retailer's bottom line, you get some screamer ad "Congressman Greenpeace Wants To Make Your Widgets 10x as Expensive to Save The Stupid Spotted Owl! In Truth it is the Spotted Owl that produces all the emissions! Kill the Spotted Owl!" financed by the worst people you know.

And that's when you get some facebook troll group (or marketing team or bot army) spamming "Spotted Owl Farts Killed The Environment While Joe Brandon Clapped!!!!" And then it becomes orthodoxy in the denialist community such that you've got Sunday Morning talk shows with people arguing over Spotted Owl emissions rather than trade law.

is there some way for a layperson like me to identify when research is not deemed worthy of reproduction?

Not practically, no. As soon as you've got that kind of info, you're no longer a lay person.

At some level, you need a network of trust with someone who does know and does have a serious take on this. And that network is going to be informed by who you already trust and listen to. And that's going to be informed by who they trust and listen to.

That's the real terror of the modern mass media system. We've corrupted so much of our information stream that its genuinely hard to find a serious media venue that's not been gobbled up by a for-profit marketing firm.

Anything could have enough significance to warrant further study. If it has societal implications or environmental concerns, it could be deemed worthy. I've read some guidelines on how to read scientific papers, but don't have the link on me. The scientists are supposed to list their biases, but it's kind of on the honor system, I think.