[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.