Worth mentioning that scientific research, even if difficult to reproduce, is still better than, say, superstitious crap. Looking at you, chem trail antivax climate deniers.
No, it isn't, because once something is labeled as "superstitious crap" it's not going to have any great impact on public policy. But if something is labeled as "scientific research", even if it's of no better quality or reliability than superstitious crap, it does have impact on public policy.
The "reproducibility crisis" is not a crisis because many scientific results are difficult to reproduce. That is to be expected in scientific research, since research is supposed to push the boundaries of what is already known, and that means many results will be sketchy and uncertain.
The "reproducibility crisis" is only a crisis for those people who took sketchy and uncertain scientific results and declared them as "settled science" and used them to drive public policy--and then everyone found out how sketchy and uncertain the results were when they could not be reproduced. So now the public doesn't know when "science" can be trusted, because scientists themselves have squandered its trustworthiness.
Your faith in the reliability of the scientific process is touching, but naive. Bad research is driving public policy in many areas.
> Even good research doesn't always hold up over time.
In the sense that it gets superseded by better models (as Bohr's original model of the atom did), sure. That's to be expected in a healthy scientific field. But one of the things that's needed to keep a field healthy in that respect is the ability to do controlled experiments with high accuracy. That's how scientists figured out that Bohr's original model of the atom wasn't right--it couldn't match the results of the experiments as they got more accurate.
It’s not helping whatever point you think you are making. Instead... consider the idea that WHAT IF climate models were failing reproducibility left and right along with the other sciences - should that mean a policy for a global tax model should be pushed as hard as it is?
You don’t have to be a “denier” to be skeptical of the course that the “true believers” are taking.
Some of us think the “climate religion” is a bad thing for a good cause. Long term counter productive.