the scientific method DOES say that a result should be reproducible. and in this case it is reproducible beyond what is required for it to become accepted
Arguing this topic doesn't do me any good. It's like trying to tell a devout christian you think there's room for doubt and uncertainty about whether the apocalypse is coming. Most people just lock their heels and reinforce their current beliefs. This message will probably fade away into a light shade of grey, making me wonder why I even bothered.
However, every time I see someone trot out the word "concensus", as though that's relevant to good science, I grind my teeth.
Me too. Because it's spelled 'consensus'.
Sarcasm? Forgive me, but it's honestly tough to tell.
Amusingly, I think anyone who can make a model of the climate which can predict 100 years into the future really should make a model of the stock market a modest 1 year into the future instead. Having done so, they could make enough money to buy whatever technological or political change they think would solve the climate problem.
If they do their research and are convinced, it would mean a lot more to me than if someone who supported the conclusions of environmentalists' policies apriori reaches the same conclusion. If there is any such bias among climate scientists (e.g. people that go into climate science already hold certain beliefs about what should be done politically, and inadvertently favour the models / parameters / methodology that support their beliefs), this would help mitigate it to some extent.
I like how that sets the bar higher for extraordinary claims and extraordinary proof. Although honestly, I'll always be skeptical about extrapolation and predicting the future more than a few cycles out.
> If there is any such bias among climate scientists [...]
I agree. It seems fair to ask who goes into and gets accepted as a PhD in that field. It's pretty easy to imagine there could be a selection bias, and "science advances one funeral at a time".