I’m glad so many people responded to me, but most seemed to miss the point…
Science builds on other science AND observation. The reason this had to involve a great deal of collusion is because the data provided would not square with observations IF IT WAS FALSE! Yet we have literally hundreds (thousands?) of articles in many journals purporting to OBSERVE and, indeed, back up the conclusions of the false data. False data (or even rigged data) can’t stand up to repeated observations.
Of course, it becomes painfully obvious when talking about the medieval warming period or the current leveling of temperatures.
The fact that so many scientists had to have observed conditions that clearly refuted the false data and still reported it as supporting the data is a systemic failure of major proportions. And, is money really the only reason? A researcher at the University of Texas recently got millions to set up a “sex lab.” Money is never in short supply, but further on that point I can’t believe that many intelligent people would consign their children to a fate of a dark, energy-poor world for the sake of a grant and a few more graduate assistants (just as I can’t believe that oil companies would willingly poison the atmosphere for a quick buck– they have to breathe, too!)
There’s something missing to all of this, and I wish I could put my finger on what it was.
