[d0mine]

It is an obvious propaganda piece for the benefit of those who profit on the fossil fuel industry.

Psychology and Climate change are in different categories. The crisis of reproducibility in soft sciences has nothing to do with the overwhelming scientific consensus on the reality of global warming.

Many mentioned issues are real in hard science too but it just an example that you can lie with the truth. Perverse incentives, publication bias, imperfection of peer review, etc can't invalidate established results e.g., Newtonian physics continues to work in the domain it is applicable for.

It is infuriating that the planet (planetary habitability) is destroyed for the benefit of the very few.

[veddox]

I'm sorry but I really cannot see where you get this bizarre interpretation of the article from. Global warming isn't mentioned anywhere in here! ("Climate change" gets exactly one mention, between two commas, and otherwise plays no role whatsoever.)

I think you really missed the point of the article. Of course the problems the author talks about don't invalidate already established results, the big deal is that they potentially prevent new results from being soundly established (or discarded if necessary)!

[d0mine]

Are you a global warming denier?

"Climate change" is "fossil fuel"-friendly alternative to avoid saying "Global warming" for what is happening. It is disingenuous to suggests that "Global warming" is unrelated to the article.

The article equates the certainty with which we know results in Psychology and Climate change (the terms are separated by commas as you've noticed). Psychology has a very flimsy foundation: even major results can be debunked (e.g., ego depletion). On the other hand there is no doubt that the climate change (global warming) is happening.

The article can be used as a tool by climate change deniers. They could say: "science have many major issues and therefore climate change is a figment of these communist eggheads imagination."

[veddox]

> Are you a global warming denier?

I did not say anything to that effect in my previous comment. In fact, your question is so mindbogglingly groundless I am not even going to bother answering it.

> The article can be used as a tool by climate change deniers. They could say: "science have many major issues and therefore climate change is a figment of these communist eggheads imagination."

Of course it can, and nothing is going to stop them. But does that mean we shouldn't be talking about the problems we are facing in science? You aren't going to fix anything if you refuse to talk about it.

This article isn't about climate change any more than it is about climate change deniers. That's another discussion for another time. This article is about our problems in the way we do science. So stick to the point, please.