That's a very good point. I know you're trying to be sarcastic, but if you had any self-awareness you'd stop and ponder it. Who do you think ends up doing 'climate science'? Why?
Oh, I ponder it a lot, which is why after getting a 'math' degree I went to study 'history'. There are many reasons why certain people choose to study certain things, and surely 'climate science' draws people whose proclivities are, on average, different from those who choose to study 'physics', 'math', 'medicine', 'history' etc[1]. Nevertheless, taking that into too much considerations would leave us in a conundrum. If evaluating any research would require us to examine the psychology of the researchers, first, we would need lots of psychologists, and what about the psychology of those who study 'psychology'? We're getting close to a Russel's paradox here. In any event, I would sooner listen to those who first bother to study something and only then analyze it.
[1] I'm not a native English speaker -- I don't know if you are -- but you're the first I've seen to write the names of academic disciplines in single-quotes. Is that a thing?
