First of all, computers models are obviously science. Most advancements in physics, chemistry, engineering, etc are based on computer models. Second, climate science is not only based on climate models, there is a bunch of experimental data involved. Also there is no religiously held belief as criticisms keep being being refuted time after time. While the point of "low standard journals" is valid and there is a lot of shitty research out there (specially in medical sciences and the likes that take correlation as causation) climate science is not one of them.  Do you research, buddy.

Sorry, man.  You're dead.

Dr. Feinman,
Regarding intentionality, I wonder what you think of the source this article cited to support that point:
"How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data"
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0005738

Yes, the study was based on survey data, but I am not sure how else one could systematically evaluate this issue.

Here are the results:
"A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices." 

Lamiece,
I cannot tell if you misrepresented, or merely misunderstood, this piece.

Not once did "Anonymous" seriously suggest that "good scientists know where to cut corners." Instead the author lamented the fact that this is what he/she learned at his/her "stellar PhD university." The author's point is that the incentives in science do not reward "meticulous and scrupulous" research, and this is unfortunate. 

Moreover, the piece does not endorse the presence of "alpha males" at big and successful labs. Quite the opposite. It warns of the problems inherent with the alpha males' aggressive, even reckless approach to science. 

The three scientists the author identified as "men" are in fact men. One may not reasonably infer sexist bias from describing men as men any more than one may infer jingoistic tendencies if an author describes Americans as Americans. 

Perhaps you object to the absence of female sources, but that concern too is misplaced. The author cites Marion Nestle. Marion is in fact a woman. Perhaps you assumed otherwise, but that betrays your own views, not the author's. (Please do not infer anything about my personal worldview from my accurate identification of Marion as a female).

Now, if you have any sound objections to the substance of this piece I'd love to hear them. 

Russ, my point is that this piece presents a bleak, masculine, cynical view of science, and whether the author agrees with the current state of affairs or not or not, the editorial decision to publish this perpetuates a series of unhelpful, narrow stereotypes about science and what it means to be a scientist. 

Science is so much more diverse than this and I would have much preferred to see constructive thoughts about how we tackle these challenges instead of using click bait titles tarnishing the image of scientists as ‘cheats’. This may have been the author’s personal experience - and I’m sorry about that because that is not universal  -  but I don’t think CrossFit.com is the right place for this kind of piece. In my opinion, there are a 1000 more papers and commentaries that could be more relevant to a CrossFit audience.

The view may be "masculine" and "bleak." I might even grant you "unhelpful," at least in the sense that it's unlikely to be followed by any meaningful reform. I'd not ever accede to "inaccurate" or "irrelevant," though, for the simple reason that neither is true. If you believe the claims to be inaccurate, the burden is on you to not merely describe them, but rebut the arguments made and the sources upon which they rely. This you have not done.

Since CrossFit began to expose bad science, it has encountered many critics like yourself. Rather than meaningfully disputing our allegations, these critics asked why CrossFit is speaking up.

How many instances of scientific misconduct, hidden funding, and other unethical behavior in science must CrossFit expose before it earns the right to speak, in your view?

Would taking down the most prolific researcher in exercise science, William Kraemer, for fraud suffice? Or proving that strength and conditioning field's premiere association had committed scientific misconduct and perjury?

Or proving that the CDC and NIH's foundations had failed to comply with their legal requirement to annually, publicly report the source, amount and restrictions associated with each payment they accepted? How about suing the Department of Health and Human Services over its failure to comply with the Freedom of Information Act, and preventing the department from retroactively redacting emails suggesting its own staff was aware of unethical behavior occurring regarding its corporate partnerships?

These are just a few instances. If you will just delineate what amount of work in the field would grant us the right to speak in your eyes, I am happy to lay out the full scope of our activities.