It's a fair question. But, no, there isn't a similar risk. Psychology is among the social sciences. That field is experiencing the reproducibility crisis, and

It's a fair question. But, no, there isn't a similar risk. Psychology is among the social sciences. That field is experiencing the reproducibility crisis, and it's been a long time coming. The subject matter is extremely difficult to study in an objective way, and the smallest of nuances can distort results (e.g. the article mentions taking a test on computer vs on paper). Also, humans aren't passive subjects, they change and react to being studied. That's just not the case in the physical sciences like chemistry, physics, etc. There isn't any similar crisis there at all. To be fair, climate science is somewhere in the middle, in that it can't be studied in the fully rigorous way that physics can, with controlled experiments. However, that middle ground contains other very solid fields of science, like evolutionary biology. Massive reproducibility crises just haven't happened in those areas. The social sciences are just different. Perhaps it's naive to think that a simple law like "ego depletion" could possibly work consistently, given how complex human beings are. That's the core issue, and climate science doesn't suffer from it.