Maggie's Farm

Degenerate bolshevik “There’s a fire! Give me a trillion dollars and I’ll put it out”

*Normal person*”There is no fire. Did someone pay you to say that?”

*Degenerate bolshevik*”Yes”

Normal person “Why are you doing this?”

*Degenerate bolshevik*”Because I am a self-loathing godless freak who despises humanity and I want to burn Western Civilization to the ground.”

Non-replicable publications in Nature and Science are 300 times more likely to be cited than replicable ones. I wonder why that would be. Furthermore, only 12% publicly acknowledge the reproducibility failure.

Occams razor says your climate science is a big bullshit money grift. And since you continue to push the bullshit on people when you know that few of these cited studies are even replicable then that makes you a disingenuous fraud.

If everything you say is true then replicability in the science journals should be near 100%.

It's not even close.

Even more disturbing is the papers that are not replicable get way more citations than the replicable ones. This is because the incentives for publishing papers that conform to the false but extremely profitable narrative of global warming are greater than than the incentives for publishing pure replicable science.

The fact is, if it was real you wouldn't have to fake things like the hockey stick, the surface temperature stations, the constantly revising the past downwards to create temperature trends where they didn't exist.

You could just do hard replicable science. It should be easy. ("Basic physics" like you said.) But you don't. Instead you create "science" that can't be replicated, you fudge data, revise past records and discard raw data. And when honest scientists attempt to check your work, you fight them tooth and nail to prevent them from doing so. You make hyperbolic fear mongering proclamations only to deny them when your doomsday predictions fail. And for these unscrupulous "services" you demand trillions of our hard earned dollars.

So we don't believe you anymore.

Begone, foul demon. Back to the father of lies whom you serve.

So all temperature data is reliable and the physics has been understood for 100 years, yet you have a serious replicability crisis in your major publications. That certainly doesnt follow.

Unless you are lying.

Z "The replication crisis is a real phenomenon. It is strongest in psychology, social sciences, and medical research"

As I said previously, the most egregious thing is not that the research is not replicable, it is that the non-replicable research is what overwhelmingly gets cited and amplified. The amplification in Nature and Science are profoundly higher than in the fields you reference.

And just as egregious is the fact that few papers even acknowledge the failed replications.

I've pointed this out before (not that you ever learn) but if the satellite data is in total agreement with faulty surface station data that is overwhelmingly poorly maintained and or near urban heat islands, this is not something to be trumpeted as "multiple lines of evidence in agreement". It is a strong indication that your temperature data has been fudged, manipulated, revised and tortured until it produced the desired result.

Wrong. 96% of surface stations don't meet acceptable standards. It is actually an embarrassment to claim to be in agreement with them.

But you satanic idiots always choose consensus over truth.

I forgot you satanic freaks are incapable of embarrassment. You always just double down.