As to the "majority of climate scientists"

Where are those posted studies?

You can't possibly count McIntyre's examination of Mann's tree ring proxy. That was years ago and doesn't even slightly invalidate current progress in climatology.

 

Sorry but your lack of knowledge on the subject is not my problem.

 

LOL, The debunked hockey stick =/= current progress in climatology.

 

Fake Science has everything to do with the credibility of science. Science is broken.

Actually you did ask for me for a cite. Scroll back. Perhaps you intended to reply to another post.

Ddy: Yes. Fake Science is a very inconvenient truth.
You: Hey - I just asked for a cite!
You: If that's too hard, what does THAT say?

"If the replication crisis is a sign that science isn’t broken, then what does “broken” even mean?
In the stem-cell case, self-correcting science did appear to work as advertised: Problems in the paper were discovered by attentive colleagues shortly after it appeared in print. But the recent history of science fraud suggests that many more examples come to light not quickly and not via any standard self-corrective mechanism—e.g., peer review or unsuccessful replications—but rather at a long delay and through the more conventional means of whistleblowing. That’s how Diedrik Stapel, a notorious fabulist with 58 retracted papers in social psychology, was discovered in 2011. The fact that Stapel’s brazen fraud had not been caught (or self-corrected) earlier made his case a seminal event in the current replication crisis. Why had no one noticed, in strictly scientific terms, all the false effects that he’d slipped into the literature?"
SLATE: SCIENCE, Is Science Broken? Or is it self-correcting? By Daniel Engber, Lisa Larson-Walker, AUG. 21 2017.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...is_not_self_correcting_science_is_broken.html

 

This is not even worth getting into. The world wide efforts in climatology can't possibly be ignored by simply pointing at Mann.

That's just plain silly.

 

But, reality IS your problem.

 

Duh, that was a blatant example. There are many.

 

you can't debate science with ideologues and conspiracy theorists...

 

Your imagined reality does not necessarily mean it is fact.

 

Certainly can't and why those that are true believers of the GW dogma never venture beyond the preferred narrative to investigate anything on their own.

 

I was referring to the fact that I had asked another poster for a cite to back his claim, and he couldn't produce it.

I didn't attack his idea - I asked for a cite!! And, even THAT was too hard for him.

And, YOUR contribution had to do with psychology - which is part of a distressingly different science methodology from what is used in the hard sciences of climatology.

So, your complaint simply doesn't apply.

 

When the NYT puts "The Replication Crisis" on A1 it's serious. You are in denial

"In fact, the week before the New York Times put the replication crisis on A1, science journalist Christie Aschwanden laid out these facts in great detail in a wonderful article and interactive for FiveThirtyEight. Her piece runs through the many biases, errors, and inefficiencies of modern scientific practice that allow false findings to infiltrate the literature. Researchers can hack their way to spurious conclusions, and they’re incentivized to hide negative results. Journal editors ignore replication failures, and they’re often slow to fix mistakes."
SLATE: SCIENCE, Is Science Broken? Or is it self-correcting? By Daniel Engber, Lisa Larson-Walker, AUG. 21 2017.
http://www.slate.com/articles/healt...is_not_self_correcting_science_is_broken.html

 

The replication crisis is across the board, even medicine and epidemiology - not just "psychology".

"Because when studies are replicated, they rarely come up with the same results. Only a third of the 100 studies published in three top psychology journals could be successfully replicated in a large 2015 test.

Medicine, epidemiology, population science and nutritional studies fare no better, Ioannidis said, when attempts are made to replicate them.

"Across biomedical science and beyond, scientists do not get trained sufficiently on statistics and on methodology," Ioannidis said."

AFP, Beware those scientific studies -- most are wrong, researcher warns, By Ivan Couronne, July 5, 2018.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/beware-t...es-most-wrong-researcher-warns-164336076.html

Fake Science Kills.

 

Exactly.

 

Then cite it.

 

Glad you agree that your reality may not be real.

 

Good Lord. Don't you true believers ever go beyond what you are told to believe? Have you no curiosity?

 

"Replication Crisis" Is a real and very serious thing. Scientists are not perfect and anybody claiming they are isn't doing science. On the other hand, one article in slate definitely counteracts the entirety of human civilization.

 

True.

But, I didn't want to "debate". I said nothing to dispute or even ask for explanation of his "heat island" claims.

I just asked for a cite so I could read a version of his argument.


drluggit couldn't even handle THAT!

 

I'm not glad that you don't have the same level of understanding.

 

Thank goodness for that. I would hate to be so uninformed.

 

Especially since your 'reality' can't be backed up

 

You didn't even read your own article!!!

Again, this is about the soft sciences, psychology in particular.

While it is always a concern, the serious problems identified have to do with the soft sciences.

The start of the problem is that when studying human populations there are serious ethical limits in what someone may do. Science depends on controls that aim to isolate a particular factor. In psychology, that kind of control is highly difficult due to ethical limitations.

So, we get studies from the soft sciences where the controls are too lax to consider that testing supports the hypothesis.

 

Yes. Medicine has the same difficulties as does psychology when the study involves humans. You can't force a population of humans to consume specific amounts of something suspected of being carcinogenic, for example. In fact, you can't keep humans locked up, so their precise exposures are fully known.

Suggesting this is a reason to discard climatology is total nonsense.

But, it does mitigate for stronger training in scientific methodology.

 

??

I'm the one asking for the justification.

YOU are telling me I should simply believe.