5 ms·

You're comparing many unscientific or poorly structured psychology studies to rigorously recorded and analyzed climate data? You might as well give up now if y

You're comparing many unscientific or poorly structured psychology studies to rigorously recorded and analyzed climate data? You might as well give up now if your entire view of reality has been up-ended as you claim...

Karunamon 9y ago
Both are peer reviewed science at the end of the day. What's to say the climatology studies are "rigorously recorded and analyzed" any better than the psychology studies? Am I to trust climatologists more than neuropsychologists for some reason? * Both are experts in their field * Both have prestigious journals * Both are supposed to have a peer review process that prevents bogosity from being published and accepted. Yet in one field, the peer review process, the ultimate guard that's supposed to prevent junk science from being published, failed. Is failing. Repeatedly. For a long time. It's not one failure, it's a chain of systemic failures. That tells me that the entire concept of peer review is not immune to degenerating. And if it can happen in one field, it can happen in another, especially one that's harshly politicized (which psychology isn't, at least not anywhere near the same insane degree).
- Karunamon 9y ago
  I find it very telling that this comment, the root problem, was downvoted and remains unanswered.
  - Oletros 9y ago
    Perhaps it has been downvoted because the OP doesn't have any argument. When some of the ones talking about the irreproducibility can give any proof that climate science has the same problem, perhaps we can start to talk.
- Oletros 9y ago
  > That tells me that the entire concept of peer review is not immune to degenerating. And if it can happen in one field, it can happen in another, especially one that's harshly politicized (which psychology isn't, at least not anywhere near the same insane degree). Politization occurs almost only in the US. Are you accusing the scientists of being politized? Do you have any argument for your claims of not reprodicibility in climate science? Do you have any argument for doubting the data that has been used for more than 40 years? Do you have any argument apart of your political views?
  - Karunamon 9y ago
    Are you saying scientists (or rather, the institutions that fund their research and publish their data) are immune to politicization? Are you saying that climatology is immune to bunk being published despite peer review? Your post is a lot of whataboutism that doesn't answer the questions posed.

Karunamon 9y ago

Both are peer reviewed science at the end of the day. What's to say the climatology studies are "rigorously recorded and analyzed" any better than the psychology studies? Am I to trust climatologists more than neuropsychologists for some reason? * Both are experts in their field * Both have prestigious journals * Both are supposed to have a peer review process that prevents bogosity from being published and accepted. Yet in one field, the peer review process, the ultimate guard that's supposed to prevent junk science from being published, failed. Is failing. Repeatedly. For a long time. It's not one failure, it's a chain of systemic failures. That tells me that the entire concept of peer review is not immune to degenerating. And if it can happen in one field, it can happen in another, especially one that's harshly politicized (which psychology isn't, at least not anywhere near the same insane degree).

Karunamon 9y ago
I find it very telling that this comment, the root problem, was downvoted and remains unanswered.
- Oletros 9y ago
  Perhaps it has been downvoted because the OP doesn't have any argument. When some of the ones talking about the irreproducibility can give any proof that climate science has the same problem, perhaps we can start to talk.
Oletros 9y ago
> That tells me that the entire concept of peer review is not immune to degenerating. And if it can happen in one field, it can happen in another, especially one that's harshly politicized (which psychology isn't, at least not anywhere near the same insane degree). Politization occurs almost only in the US. Are you accusing the scientists of being politized? Do you have any argument for your claims of not reprodicibility in climate science? Do you have any argument for doubting the data that has been used for more than 40 years? Do you have any argument apart of your political views?
- Karunamon 9y ago
  Are you saying scientists (or rather, the institutions that fund their research and publish their data) are immune to politicization? Are you saying that climatology is immune to bunk being published despite peer review? Your post is a lot of whataboutism that doesn't answer the questions posed.