We are a commune of inquiring, skeptical, politically centrist, capitalist, anglophile, traditionalist New England Yankee humans, humanoids, and animals with many interests beyond and above politics. Each of us has had a high-school education (or GED), but all had ADD so didn't pay attention very well, especially the dogs. Each one of us does "try my best to be just like I am," and none of us enjoys working for others, including for Maggie, from whom we receive neither a nickel nor a dime. Freedom from nags, cranks, government, do-gooders, control-freaks and idiots is all that we ask for.
Science is useful if it leads to technological innovation. Otherwise, it has no value. The problem with "climate science" is that there is no intended technological benefit. Since there is no connection to real technology, it can easily go off the rails in terms of experimental procedure, and this is precisely what we have seen.
I don't know what you mean, but I can agree that, in industry, there is usually a moment of truth when the rubber hits the road. I have seen designs or concepts gets chucked or tweaked no matter how ingenious or state of the art they appear on paper, because they didn't meet spec. Of course, this occurs when dealing with inert materials, under controlled conditions, with established procedures, as opposed to biological systems, for example. Obviously there are some theories that are more reliant on chains of inference and less subject to methodical testing and measurement. They should be evaluated with that in mind.
Between conflicts of interest, competition for tenure and grants (regardless of source: public/private), coopted peer review, peer pressure, the 15 minutes of fame allure, fiddling with the data, the CULT of models/algorithms, I don’t think you have to be a flat-earther to be skeptical of science/academia, and not just the soft sciences. But, I am sympathetic to scientists; I believe, all those folks who piggy back on the work of others, media and activists, share the blame. Have you ever read a scientific paper that didn’t limit its conclusion to a very specific set of parameters? By the time it reaches the general media and internet, these qualifying conditions and caveats are lost, and instead we read wildly extrapolated conclusions and broad generalizations. Think of the junk that is lumped under nutrition. Is there anything at all that is not a panacea or that we are not deficient in? Not to mention all the studies that have been conflated, especially irksome to a linear thinker, like me. Think AGW or fracking.