> You're really saying that anyone who reads a scientific paper should replicate it themselves? Really? Stop strawmanning me. You're doing it so poorly I'm won

> You're really saying that anyone who reads a scientific paper should replicate it themselves? Really? Stop strawmanning me. You're doing it so poorly I'm wondering whether you actually understood my comments. Same with contradicting myself, you'll have to point me to exactly where you think I do that, because I don't see it. But because you're asking so incredulously: Math papers always require proofs, and if you agree the proofs are correct you've basically replicated the result. So there's actually an entire field of rather smart people who think you should always replicate the results. For fields without this built-in replication, there's such a thing as the replication crisis, which means scientists probably aren't infallible (duh), and you probably should verify results before you rely on them being correct (duh). For climate science, add the fact that as soon as you can verify the results, they're useless.