[fromthestart]

>This analysis confuses cause and effect. Science became "leftist" because the right rejected the findings of science in areas like climatology in favour of its own pseudoscientific nonsense.

Academic institutions have leaned left since at least the 60s, back when leftism was an actual counterculture movement. This has nothing to do with climate science.

>Complaints about "gender studies" are mostly a red herring. Social sciences are not the same as geology, climatology, or biology and don't inhabit the same departments in most universities.

Gender studies is fully related to the discussion, because it is an exclusively leftist pursuit, intrinsically linked to modern "liberal" policymaking, and respected institutions tacitly enforce their pseudoscientific, sexist, racist, and classist drivel by allowing them space and funding, while making no such allowances to anything related to right wing politics. Right leaning ideas are effectively forbidden at the majority of so called elite universities in the U.S.

How can you expect scientific departments to be unbiased when their administration and sources of funding are openly and strongly politically leaning and active?

Further, and most importantly, do you really believe that climate science is immune to dogma and the statistical abuses that are responsible for the replication crisis evident in other empirical disciplines? Even asking such a question is career suicide - which unfortunately justifies some degree of right wing scepticism of modern academia due to politicization.

[scarmig]

The majority of academic scientists identified as Republicans, up through the 80s.

The conspiracy you imagine of academic administrators shutting down research that undermines climate change because of gender studies is inane.

[fromthestart]

>The conspiracy you imagine of academic administrators shutting down research that undermines climate change because of gender studies is inane.

You've misrepresented my point. The point is that the existence and condoning of politically slanted departments like those of gender studies is further evidence of a strong liberal bias in academic administration, which will inevitability bleed into management of climate science because of how politicized it has become.

[scarmig]

You've failed to establish how the existence of gender studies departments means we can dismiss the findings of the physical sciences, including climate change. It is still an inane point.

[fromthestart]

>You've failed to establish how the existence of gender studies departments means we can dismiss the findings of the physical sciences

I am not advocating for dismissal, I am merely suggesting that social and political pressure for certain results from the hiring and financial appropriation practices of a politically biased administration can introduce aggregate bias in published results. And on the subject:

>The majority of academic scientists identified as Republicans, up through the 80s

You've failed to establish how even a republican leaning scientific establishment is immune from the whims of administration resulting in, say, only publishing results that support the politically correct positions. It is a fact that the overwhelming majority University administration's lean strongly left - and when science is politicized, there's a strong chance that, again, such administrative bias will affect results in seemingly innocuous ways. Not to mention that most environmental scientists have personal left leaning biases and experience social and professional pressures which also may be reflected in results.

Significance testing, publication of only positive results, and model design are three methods by a which slant may be unintentionally introduced and, again, we know that these problems have lead to the replication crisis explicitly identified in other empirical sciences - why do you think no one is willing to ask the same, legitimate question about climate science, particularly when climatology by nature is not a reproducible discipline?

[scarmig]

> we know that these problems have lead to the replication crisis explicitly identified in other empirical sciences - why do you think no one is willing to ask the same, legitimate question about climate science

Oh, for Christ's sake. If anything, climate scientists talk about this more than most other specialties:

"Perspectives on Reproducibility and Replication of Results in Climate Science"

https://www.nap.edu/resource/25303/Reproducibility%20and%20R... (No, the National Academies of Sciences aren't comprised of crypto-socialist ideologues.)

It took literally 10 seconds of Googling to find that. Writing this comment is taking several times as long.

Perhaps the fever swamp that's constantly wondering if climate scientists understand basic science should perform basic due diligence on their own mental models of how the world works.

[fromthestart]

The source you linked discussed reproducibility of modeling and analysis of historic data. It makes no mention of the problems responsible for the experimental replication crisis that I'm describing in other fields - it wouldn't make sense to because climate science is not and cannot be experimental. Which makes the science more vulnerable to bias because there is fundamentally no way to prove beyond statistical estimated whether it is right or wrong.

Why do you refuse to admit the possibility that political and social pressures in such a strongly politicized field can bias climate science? All of the ingredients are there, and the only reason such an assertion is contentious is because of these very same political norms. It begins to resemble dogma, when any criticism is treated with such disdain.