> It doesn't have to be knowingly false, though - you think that all of the studies in psychology that wound up being non-reproducible were all submitted by pat

> It doesn't have to be knowingly false, though - you think that all of the studies in psychology that wound up being non-reproducible were all submitted by pathological liars? > But if there's a more meta issue involved, such as bad data, I argue that it'll never see the light of day given the political incentives. This is why single studies alone should not be the basis for large changes in policy. The current consensus in climate science is based on a large number of studies from different universities, science bodies, countries, using different sources of data, using different methods, and over a period of time. All of these factors makes it likely that the consensus is something which we should believe, and which should guide our policies. > Keep in mind that I never even mentioned deception, that was something you just set up and knocked down on your own. You stated that scientists have a profit motive for fudging their numbers, which if they did would be deceptive behavior.