@Roger Ramjet
They showed that a cadre of climate scientists were deliberately using "peer pressure" in an attempt to prevent the publication of scientific articles that contradicted their preferred narrative that humans are causing global warming. This is a no-no in scientific research. All ideas and evidence must be entertained (at least initially), but only the ideas that can be validated by testing of actual phenomena, or observation of the same, should be used as bases for further research. This is just "scientific method 101".
They also showed that a few scientists were deliberately trying to hide their research methods. One of them said they'd rather frustrate the disclosure process than reveal how they arrived at their data. This is just plain unscientific methodology. By definition science is about the sharing of theories and data, and full disclosure of the methods by which they were obtained (again, "scientific method 101").
When researchers went into the CRU's archives, after the "climategate" incident occurred, and looked for original data related to information that was in the e-mails, they were told that the original data had been deleted years ago. All that was left was the massaged data. Yeah, I'd say that's "acting stupidly". That alone should've brought the research into serious doubt, because, again, it didn't allow researchers to look into how the massaged data was derived. I think in any other field of research the CRU data would've been rejected for its sloppiness. But these guys get a pass, as usual.
Discussion on:
Message 2 of 1
The best of ZDNet, delivered
ZDNet Newsletters
Get the best of ZDNet delivered straight to your inbox
