“It’s irrelevant to the actual conversation that is taking place today about the climate crisis,” Mann told me in an email. “Republicans might try to prop up this latest desperate gambit. But the conversation has moved on, and this is really just a distraction and a sideshow.”
Michael Mann is the most conflicted person you could possibly find on this issue. He's one of the climatologists the 1,609 signatories are publicly disagreeing with.
He's also the "expert" whose famous hockey stick paper got very publicly and embarrassingly debunked by internet randos, who he then sued specifically to engage in nothing more than legal harassment. After years of dragging out the cases by refusing to file paperwork they all got dropped because the defendents mounted a truth defense, and Mann couldn't/wouldn't actually follow through his dispute with them. IPCC meanwhile quietly shelved his claims.
It's telling that Mann resorts immediately to partisan ideological warfare (anyone who disagrees with me is a republican!) That shit obviously works in climatology, but it isn't science.
Honest question: are there any aspects of climate science that aren't political these days?
I'd certainly love to see climate discussions that openly talk about facts, but it always seems to wind down to the Horrific Apocalypse Mitigators vs. the Crusaders Against Government Overreach.
Denying anthropogenic climate change and overshoot is akin to believing that the Earth is flat, that it's only 6,000 years old, that dinosaurs are a hoax, or that the theory of evolution is false. There are a lot of ignorants out there, and some even succeed in politics.
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
From the article:
“Looking at the list of signatories, there are a lot of engineers, medical doctors, and petroleum geologists and almost no actual climate scientists,” said Zeke Hausfather, a longtime research scientist at Berkeley Earth, a non-partisan nonprofit that specializes in analyzing climate data, and the former director of climate and energy programs at the Breakthrough Institute, another independent environmental research firm.
You have the right to believe in the climatologists' consensus, but I'm not convinced. I still haven't heard any sensible answers to the common-sense claims I've heard about how water is a better indicator of climate change than carbon.
Lies become consensus proportionally to their political advantage, and the fact that climate science defines sweeping portions of government policy leaves me estimating that the fudge rate is above standard acceptable parameters.
Consensus is about the most anti-scientific disposition possible, by my estimation, and I'd like to hear discussions from a more diverse range of viewpoints than the stock-standard atheist humanist materialist naturalist POV that colleges tend to churn out.
> climate science defines sweeping portions of government policy leaves me estimating that the fudge rate is above standard acceptable parameters
Politics has not yet started taking climate change and overshoot seriously. I won't comment further on the matter.
> Consensus is about the most anti-scientific disposition possible, by my estimation, and I'd like to hear discussions from a more diverse range of viewpoints than the stock-standard atheist humanist materialist naturalist POV that colleges tend to churn out
Ah, consensus, the ultimate boogeyman of free thought, right? Because clearly, when a majority of experts in a field agree on something based on, you know, data and years of rigorous study, they must be shackled by groupthink. God forbid they reach a similar conclusion through independent research and critical analysis. No, let's ignore decades—or even centuries—of academic advancement in favor of "a more diverse range of viewpoints," irrespective of their empirical validity. After all, who needs peer-reviewed evidence when you've got opinions?
And let's not even get started on the "stock-standard atheist humanist materialist naturalist POV." It's almost like educational institutions aim to base their teachings on reason, empiricism, and the scientific method rather than catering to every fringe ideology that claims to have found 'The Truth™.' The audacity!
But hey, if you're not a fan of consensus, I've got some "alternative viewpoints" on gravity and heliocentrism you might be interested in. Why let overwhelming agreement among experts ruin a good debate, am I right?
No it isn't. It's more akin to denying phrenology, phlogiston, leeches or almost anything that psychology has claimed in the past 20 years. Bad science is everywhere and has always existed throughout history. You can't just pick some random bits of science that are agreed to be not bad and state that they're the same: they aren't.
> More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree
According to the same people who literally put in writing that they would "redefine the peer reviewed literature if we have to" to stop disagreement getting published.
Please. Nobody who wants to know what's true gives a shit about what's said in the forums the academics under fire themselves control, that's obviously stupid.
“Looking at the list of signatories, there are a lot of engineers, medical doctors, and petroleum geologists and almost no actual climate scientists,” said Zeke Hausfather,
Are you aware you're citing a known climate change denier who agrees with the signatories that there's no climate emergency?
It's a bit eye opening how many time I, a climate scientist, have been called a denier in the last 24 hours for having the temerity to say our children are not necessarily consigned to an apocalyptic hellscape of a future. Doomism is a disease, and a self-fulfilling prophesy.
which is in response to the lashing he got for this:
“I unequivocally reject, scientifically and personally, the notion that children are somehow doomed to an unhappy life”.
Even Hausfather knows that, but other people say the same thing suddenly he's upset that they're just a bunch of Nobel Prize winning physicists, cofounders of Greenpeace, professors of atmospheric physics, climate researchers, meteorologists, experts on rainfall and flooding, earth scientists and ugh engineers.
Well, it's a rich tapestry of viewpoints you've got there, isn't it? On one hand, we've got the "bad science is everywhere" narrative, which, sure, science has had its misses. But you're conflating isolated missteps with a comprehensive understanding developed over decades. Saying they're the same is like comparing apples to an apple pie that one time had a bad slice.
As for the critique on peer-reviewed literature, you're essentially saying we can't trust the vetting system that underpins all of scientific discovery because it's run by - shock horror - scientists? That's like saying we can't trust medical diagnoses because they're made by doctors.
And ah, Zeke Hausfather - a "known climate change denier" who's not actually denying climate change but arguing against extreme doomism - the belief that catastrophic outcomes related to issues like climate change are not only inevitable but also imminent, to the point where mitigation efforts are considered futile.
Finally, the credentials you're listing - Nobel Prize winners, Greenpeace co-founders, and the like - are impressive, sure. But they aren't a substitute for a wide body of evidence. Anomalies don't negate the rule; they make us scrutinize it. Which, last I checked, is what good science is all about.
I think modern science rides off the back of the good reputation developed by earlier researchers. In modern fields of "science" it's common to find failure to replicate rates of more than 50%, or even higher. Other fields don't even accept that replicability matters at all, or they blatantly misrepresent their own findings. So yeah, modern science (as opposed to say, pre-WW2 science) is more like a barrel of bad apples with a few good ones, rather than the other way around. People have started noticing in recent years.
We can't trust peer review, correct. Climate peer review isn't run by generic disinterested scientists, it's run by climatologists specifically - the very people whose income and influence directly depends on the perception that it's a very important field. If they were to be exaggerating as a group, how would the peer review process fix that? It wouldn't, which is why the many scientists and engineers who have peer reviewed climate science and think it's no good have to resort to public declarations.
That's like saying we can't trust medical diagnoses because they're made by doctors.
That's a major critique of the entire US medical system isn't it? That doctors over-medicalize things because they're financially incentivized to do so. We can debate to what extent that's true but you're depicting this as an obviously absurd idea when it's actually taken pretty seriously by lots of people, partly because there have been cases in the past where doctors appear to have (accidentally) created fake epidemics, like the wave of multiple personality disorder diagnoses that appeared and then disappeared within the last 50 years.
a "known climate change denier" who's not actually denying climate change
Right! In fact nobody given that label actually denies that the climate changes, which is why it's a slur. The climate has always changed. Yet as Hausfather discovered, the monster they've given birth to doesn't care about minor details like that. You're either a doomer or a denier and there's nothing in between.
The people signing this declaration are saying that there is warming, but it's caused by both natural and artificial factors. They don't even deny humans create warming. But they criticize specific claims made by climatologists, and thus get described by people who haven't read the document - and by you - as "denying anthropogenic climate change".
Your argument touches on several points, each of which deserves a nuanced response. So let's dive in.
First, about the decline of science's "good reputation" and the issue of replicability: Failure to replicate is an inherent part of the scientific process that helps it self-correct. While it's true that some modern scientific fields face replication crises, using that to dismiss entire disciplines, especially well-established ones like climatology, is a broad brush that does more to muddy the waters than clarify them.
As for peer review being flawed because it's "run by climatologists" — experts in the field being criticized — your argument sounds perilously close to a conspiracy theory. The idea that all climatologists are financially and professionally incentivized to uphold a false narrative is not just cynical; it misunderstands how academic tenure and prestige work. Scientists gain notoriety and respect by overturning existing paradigms, not by conforming to them.
You're right that challenges like over-prescription of opioids continue to be serious issues within the medical system. However, these issues are met with ongoing scrutiny, calls for reform, and targeted actions to address the problem, rather than a dismissal of the entire field of medicine. The existence of flaws doesn't invalidate the enterprise; it emphasizes the need for continuous oversight and adjustment. Just as we wouldn't discard the entire medical field because of specific issues, it's reductive to discredit the bulk of climate science due to criticisms of the peer-review process or other perceived shortcomings.
As for the "doomer or denier" binary, you've created a false dichotomy. There is a wide range of opinion within climate science, from the degree of human influence to the best methods of mitigation. But the majority opinion, backed by empirical data, leans toward significant anthropogenic impact.
Lastly, the "climate changes naturally" argument. While it's a factual statement, it's also an incomplete one when discussing the current situation. The speed and impact of recent changes are what concern climatologists, and numerous studies attribute this to human activity.
You seem to want room for nuance and complexity in this discussion, which is commendable. But you can't then turn around and use sweeping generalizations to dismiss the bulk of scientific consensus.
EDIT:
I think that all points from that document are thoroughly debunked and explained at skepticalscience.com. I suggest spending some time there instead.
To clarify, there's no need to tip-toe around politely. I am absolutely asserting a conspiracy! This assertion is on strong ground because academics get caught so frequently putting in writing that they're engaged in a conspiracy to pervert peer review. I'm not sure whether this is stupidity (hopefully) or cynical awareness that they can get away with anything and it won't matter (more likely). We already mentioned the famous ClimateGate email where a CRU member said specifically he'd keep skeptical papers out "even if I have to redefine what peer review means to do it", but then there's also incidents like this one, where an invited IPCC reviewer was blocked specifically because he was trying to actually review papers carefully and was asking for data i.e. wasn't one of "the team", as climatologists like to call it.
I’ve mentioned in passing on a number of occasions that, when I sought to obtain supporting data for then unpublished articles, IPCC threatened to expel me as a reviewer.
Go read the whole article, it's extremely damaging to the credibility of the IPCC. This stuff is no surprise because "The idea that all climatologists are financially and professionally incentivized to uphold a false narrative is not just cynical", it's also true. The idea that scientists celebrate and pop the bubbly when they get proven wrong is academic propaganda. Yes, if the overturning of a paradigm isn't too embarrassing to the old guard and creates lots of new potential papers for the next generation then they'll get over it and get on with it (ex. quantum physics). But far more common is an overturning that goes like this:
1. All your answers are based on a shoddy pseudo-scientific paradigm and should be retracted.
2. But we don't know the answers either, so there is no new paradigm.
In other words, science is invalidated but there's no new direction to go in that lets something be salvaged from the ruins. Academia very visibly cannot handle this. Nor will it ever be able to handle this, it's inherent to the incentive structure. The signatories to this declaration are outsiders, so what climatologists do next when their paradigm is overturned just isn't their problem. They don't care, all they care about is that science as a whole isn't seen to be exaggerating or lying. But climatologists very much do care because if their current paradigm is overturned then they have nowhere to go, no new paradigm to reorient around. Their careers would lie in ruins with no way to rebuild. So, they fight.
This dynamic exists in all fields of course which is one of the root causes of the replication crisis. It's why it's called a "crisis" even by academic insiders, not just annoying online critics. Sure, if papers were being routinely replicated as part of the normal scientific process, and sure, if replication failure was rare, then your argument would hold water. But neither of those is correct: replication efforts are unusual one off events, and the failure rate is so high that just assuming everything said by these fields is wrong would be a perfectly rational reaction. That's clearly not normal or an intended part of the process. Moreover many papers fail to replicate for highly suspicious reasons indicative of fraud.
Climatology is in an even worse state: it's one of those fields that just systematically rejects the whole idea that its work should be replicable! Consider these two links:
> Thank you for the reasonable discussion. To clarify, there's no need to tip-toe around politely. I am absolutely asserting a conspiracy!
Asserting a conspiracy among climate scientists requires extraordinary evidence. Multiple independent reviews have found no substantial misconduct in the issues you've mentioned. Science advances through rigorous debate and data analysis, and the consensus on climate change is grounded in extensive, peer-reviewed research.
Again, that's how science is supposed to work.
If you want to find real problems, focus on why everybody's concentrating solely on climate change, when the real issue is overshoot - comprising climate change, biodiversity loss, overfishing, deforestation, soil degradation, freshwater scarcity ...
OK but the evidence is extraordinary! We can read the emails where they set up and run the conspiracies, express confidence that it will work, etc. What more do you need? They literally admit themselves that they're doing it.
> Multiple independent reviews have found no substantial misconduct in the issues you've mentioned
If you mean the reviews set up by universities then they weren't independent, were they? Actually independent reviews, by people fully outside the academic system, did find them to be engaged in gross conspiracy. But the system is unresponsive to outsiders, being a perfectly closed circle of mutual back-scratching.
Take a look here to see what academia tried to pass off as an "independent review" - they just ended up growing the conspiracy instead. This is a pretty useful document in general for describing the various controversies in the first decade of this century, bad practices, deceptive and manipulative tricks etc and how outside attempts to report them were all ignored or blown off:
What you've been describing in this thread is the storybook version of science. It's how things are meant to work, not how they really do. People who disagree with climatological claims aren't deniers, it's actually the other way around: the people who insist that scientists would never do anything untoward are the ones living in denial. The rest of us understand that they're not only human, but humans who directly profit from their tactics and who aren't being supervised or held accountable in any way.
16 comments
[ 2.9 ms ] story [ 61.9 ms ] threadhttps://insideclimatenews.org/news/23082022/experts-debunk-v...
“It’s irrelevant to the actual conversation that is taking place today about the climate crisis,” Mann told me in an email. “Republicans might try to prop up this latest desperate gambit. But the conversation has moved on, and this is really just a distraction and a sideshow.”
He's also the "expert" whose famous hockey stick paper got very publicly and embarrassingly debunked by internet randos, who he then sued specifically to engage in nothing more than legal harassment. After years of dragging out the cases by refusing to file paperwork they all got dropped because the defendents mounted a truth defense, and Mann couldn't/wouldn't actually follow through his dispute with them. IPCC meanwhile quietly shelved his claims.
It's telling that Mann resorts immediately to partisan ideological warfare (anyone who disagrees with me is a republican!) That shit obviously works in climatology, but it isn't science.
I'd certainly love to see climate discussions that openly talk about facts, but it always seems to wind down to the Horrific Apocalypse Mitigators vs. the Crusaders Against Government Overreach.
Go read a book instead.
https://news.cornell.edu/stories/2021/10/more-999-studies-ag...
More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree that climate change is mainly caused by humans, according to a new survey of 88,125 climate-related studies.
From the article:
“Looking at the list of signatories, there are a lot of engineers, medical doctors, and petroleum geologists and almost no actual climate scientists,” said Zeke Hausfather, a longtime research scientist at Berkeley Earth, a non-partisan nonprofit that specializes in analyzing climate data, and the former director of climate and energy programs at the Breakthrough Institute, another independent environmental research firm.
https://skepticalscience.com/
Lies become consensus proportionally to their political advantage, and the fact that climate science defines sweeping portions of government policy leaves me estimating that the fudge rate is above standard acceptable parameters.
Consensus is about the most anti-scientific disposition possible, by my estimation, and I'd like to hear discussions from a more diverse range of viewpoints than the stock-standard atheist humanist materialist naturalist POV that colleges tend to churn out.
So ... read, study, educate yourself.
> the common-sense claims I've heard about how water is a better indicator of climate change than carbon
I haven't heard that one yet. Maybe this will answer it?
https://skepticalscience.com/water-vapor-greenhouse-gas-inte...
> climate science defines sweeping portions of government policy leaves me estimating that the fudge rate is above standard acceptable parameters
Politics has not yet started taking climate change and overshoot seriously. I won't comment further on the matter.
> Consensus is about the most anti-scientific disposition possible, by my estimation, and I'd like to hear discussions from a more diverse range of viewpoints than the stock-standard atheist humanist materialist naturalist POV that colleges tend to churn out
Ah, consensus, the ultimate boogeyman of free thought, right? Because clearly, when a majority of experts in a field agree on something based on, you know, data and years of rigorous study, they must be shackled by groupthink. God forbid they reach a similar conclusion through independent research and critical analysis. No, let's ignore decades—or even centuries—of academic advancement in favor of "a more diverse range of viewpoints," irrespective of their empirical validity. After all, who needs peer-reviewed evidence when you've got opinions?
And let's not even get started on the "stock-standard atheist humanist materialist naturalist POV." It's almost like educational institutions aim to base their teachings on reason, empiricism, and the scientific method rather than catering to every fringe ideology that claims to have found 'The Truth™.' The audacity!
But hey, if you're not a fan of consensus, I've got some "alternative viewpoints" on gravity and heliocentrism you might be interested in. Why let overwhelming agreement among experts ruin a good debate, am I right?
> More than 99.9% of peer-reviewed scientific papers agree
According to the same people who literally put in writing that they would "redefine the peer reviewed literature if we have to" to stop disagreement getting published.
Please. Nobody who wants to know what's true gives a shit about what's said in the forums the academics under fire themselves control, that's obviously stupid.
“Looking at the list of signatories, there are a lot of engineers, medical doctors, and petroleum geologists and almost no actual climate scientists,” said Zeke Hausfather,
Are you aware you're citing a known climate change denier who agrees with the signatories that there's no climate emergency?
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1533875297220587520
It's a bit eye opening how many time I, a climate scientist, have been called a denier in the last 24 hours for having the temerity to say our children are not necessarily consigned to an apocalyptic hellscape of a future. Doomism is a disease, and a self-fulfilling prophesy.
which is in response to the lashing he got for this:
https://twitter.com/hausfath/status/1533480022559772673
“I unequivocally reject, scientifically and personally, the notion that children are somehow doomed to an unhappy life”.
Even Hausfather knows that, but other people say the same thing suddenly he's upset that they're just a bunch of Nobel Prize winning physicists, cofounders of Greenpeace, professors of atmospheric physics, climate researchers, meteorologists, experts on rainfall and flooding, earth scientists and ugh engineers.
As for the critique on peer-reviewed literature, you're essentially saying we can't trust the vetting system that underpins all of scientific discovery because it's run by - shock horror - scientists? That's like saying we can't trust medical diagnoses because they're made by doctors.
And ah, Zeke Hausfather - a "known climate change denier" who's not actually denying climate change but arguing against extreme doomism - the belief that catastrophic outcomes related to issues like climate change are not only inevitable but also imminent, to the point where mitigation efforts are considered futile.
Finally, the credentials you're listing - Nobel Prize winners, Greenpeace co-founders, and the like - are impressive, sure. But they aren't a substitute for a wide body of evidence. Anomalies don't negate the rule; they make us scrutinize it. Which, last I checked, is what good science is all about.
We can't trust peer review, correct. Climate peer review isn't run by generic disinterested scientists, it's run by climatologists specifically - the very people whose income and influence directly depends on the perception that it's a very important field. If they were to be exaggerating as a group, how would the peer review process fix that? It wouldn't, which is why the many scientists and engineers who have peer reviewed climate science and think it's no good have to resort to public declarations.
That's like saying we can't trust medical diagnoses because they're made by doctors.
That's a major critique of the entire US medical system isn't it? That doctors over-medicalize things because they're financially incentivized to do so. We can debate to what extent that's true but you're depicting this as an obviously absurd idea when it's actually taken pretty seriously by lots of people, partly because there have been cases in the past where doctors appear to have (accidentally) created fake epidemics, like the wave of multiple personality disorder diagnoses that appeared and then disappeared within the last 50 years.
a "known climate change denier" who's not actually denying climate change
Right! In fact nobody given that label actually denies that the climate changes, which is why it's a slur. The climate has always changed. Yet as Hausfather discovered, the monster they've given birth to doesn't care about minor details like that. You're either a doomer or a denier and there's nothing in between.
The people signing this declaration are saying that there is warming, but it's caused by both natural and artificial factors. They don't even deny humans create warming. But they criticize specific claims made by climatologists, and thus get described by people who haven't read the document - and by you - as "denying anthropogenic climate change".
First, about the decline of science's "good reputation" and the issue of replicability: Failure to replicate is an inherent part of the scientific process that helps it self-correct. While it's true that some modern scientific fields face replication crises, using that to dismiss entire disciplines, especially well-established ones like climatology, is a broad brush that does more to muddy the waters than clarify them.
As for peer review being flawed because it's "run by climatologists" — experts in the field being criticized — your argument sounds perilously close to a conspiracy theory. The idea that all climatologists are financially and professionally incentivized to uphold a false narrative is not just cynical; it misunderstands how academic tenure and prestige work. Scientists gain notoriety and respect by overturning existing paradigms, not by conforming to them.
You're right that challenges like over-prescription of opioids continue to be serious issues within the medical system. However, these issues are met with ongoing scrutiny, calls for reform, and targeted actions to address the problem, rather than a dismissal of the entire field of medicine. The existence of flaws doesn't invalidate the enterprise; it emphasizes the need for continuous oversight and adjustment. Just as we wouldn't discard the entire medical field because of specific issues, it's reductive to discredit the bulk of climate science due to criticisms of the peer-review process or other perceived shortcomings.
As for the "doomer or denier" binary, you've created a false dichotomy. There is a wide range of opinion within climate science, from the degree of human influence to the best methods of mitigation. But the majority opinion, backed by empirical data, leans toward significant anthropogenic impact.
Lastly, the "climate changes naturally" argument. While it's a factual statement, it's also an incomplete one when discussing the current situation. The speed and impact of recent changes are what concern climatologists, and numerous studies attribute this to human activity.
You seem to want room for nuance and complexity in this discussion, which is commendable. But you can't then turn around and use sweeping generalizations to dismiss the bulk of scientific consensus.
EDIT:
I think that all points from that document are thoroughly debunked and explained at skepticalscience.com. I suggest spending some time there instead.
To clarify, there's no need to tip-toe around politely. I am absolutely asserting a conspiracy! This assertion is on strong ground because academics get caught so frequently putting in writing that they're engaged in a conspiracy to pervert peer review. I'm not sure whether this is stupidity (hopefully) or cynical awareness that they can get away with anything and it won't matter (more likely). We already mentioned the famous ClimateGate email where a CRU member said specifically he'd keep skeptical papers out "even if I have to redefine what peer review means to do it", but then there's also incidents like this one, where an invited IPCC reviewer was blocked specifically because he was trying to actually review papers carefully and was asking for data i.e. wasn't one of "the team", as climatologists like to call it.
https://climateaudit.org/2007/03/28/accessing-hegerl-data/
I’ve mentioned in passing on a number of occasions that, when I sought to obtain supporting data for then unpublished articles, IPCC threatened to expel me as a reviewer.
Go read the whole article, it's extremely damaging to the credibility of the IPCC. This stuff is no surprise because "The idea that all climatologists are financially and professionally incentivized to uphold a false narrative is not just cynical", it's also true. The idea that scientists celebrate and pop the bubbly when they get proven wrong is academic propaganda. Yes, if the overturning of a paradigm isn't too embarrassing to the old guard and creates lots of new potential papers for the next generation then they'll get over it and get on with it (ex. quantum physics). But far more common is an overturning that goes like this:
1. All your answers are based on a shoddy pseudo-scientific paradigm and should be retracted.
2. But we don't know the answers either, so there is no new paradigm.
In other words, science is invalidated but there's no new direction to go in that lets something be salvaged from the ruins. Academia very visibly cannot handle this. Nor will it ever be able to handle this, it's inherent to the incentive structure. The signatories to this declaration are outsiders, so what climatologists do next when their paradigm is overturned just isn't their problem. They don't care, all they care about is that science as a whole isn't seen to be exaggerating or lying. But climatologists very much do care because if their current paradigm is overturned then they have nowhere to go, no new paradigm to reorient around. Their careers would lie in ruins with no way to rebuild. So, they fight.
This dynamic exists in all fields of course which is one of the root causes of the replication crisis. It's why it's called a "crisis" even by academic insiders, not just annoying online critics. Sure, if papers were being routinely replicated as part of the normal scientific process, and sure, if replication failure was rare, then your argument would hold water. But neither of those is correct: replication efforts are unusual one off events, and the failure rate is so high that just assuming everything said by these fields is wrong would be a perfectly rational reaction. That's clearly not normal or an intended part of the process. Moreover many papers fail to replicate for highly suspicious reasons indicative of fraud.
Climatology is in an even worse state: it's one of those fields that just systematically rejects the whole idea that its work should be replicable! Consider these two links:
1. https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&...
Asserting a conspiracy among climate scientists requires extraordinary evidence. Multiple independent reviews have found no substantial misconduct in the issues you've mentioned. Science advances through rigorous debate and data analysis, and the consensus on climate change is grounded in extensive, peer-reviewed research.
Again, that's how science is supposed to work.
If you want to find real problems, focus on why everybody's concentrating solely on climate change, when the real issue is overshoot - comprising climate change, biodiversity loss, overfishing, deforestation, soil degradation, freshwater scarcity ...
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_overshoot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_boundaries#Nine_boun...
> Multiple independent reviews have found no substantial misconduct in the issues you've mentioned
If you mean the reviews set up by universities then they weren't independent, were they? Actually independent reviews, by people fully outside the academic system, did find them to be engaged in gross conspiracy. But the system is unresponsive to outsiders, being a perfectly closed circle of mutual back-scratching.
Take a look here to see what academia tried to pass off as an "independent review" - they just ended up growing the conspiracy instead. This is a pretty useful document in general for describing the various controversies in the first decade of this century, bad practices, deceptive and manipulative tricks etc and how outside attempts to report them were all ignored or blown off:
https://www.rossmckitrick.com/uploads/4/8/0/8/4808045/climat...
What you've been describing in this thread is the storybook version of science. It's how things are meant to work, not how they really do. People who disagree with climatological claims aren't deniers, it's actually the other way around: the people who insist that scientists would never do anything untoward are the ones living in denial. The rest of us understand that they're not only human, but humans who directly profit from their tactics and who aren't being supervised or held accountable in any way.
https://archive.seattletimes.com/archive/?date=19980501&slug...
This new one seems to have about as much credibility as past petitions by so called 'Scientists'.