Absolutely! Case in point we have Phil Jones, a head honcho in the GW movement in the UK, who is supposed to be neutral, say this, "If they ever find out there's an FOI here in UK, I think I'll delete the file rather than hand it over." What was he hiding, as it appears he was? He was hiding unquestionable corrupted data. Data that legislatures worldwide were enacting laws based on this fraudulent data. I know, he apologized to the British Parliament for this act but it was only after some true scientists broke to law to reveal their covert agenda. Then Phil bowed his head and shed a crocodile tear as he said he was sorry. Was he really sorry? He went on to say, "Why should I hand you my data when you're just trying to find something wrong with it?" And the sad fact is that he still is in a trusted position and still influencing legislation., only more cautiously now.

True science REVEALS. Pseudoscience can only exist under the cloak of darkness.

In theory, that sounds wonderful. In practice, that will not work. First, the funds are for the publication of results, not the raw data, which are often available elsewhere. It costs BIG money to publish, which is why some journals are asking their contributors to pay "page charges", if their grants cover them. Most don't or, if they do, only cover publishing the results, not the raw data. As an example, my doctoral dissertation was about an inch thick. Including the raw data would have doubled the size. The university has the raw data in electronic form for anyone interested in deciphering them. [The work was done in the days when data storage was a huge problem so the data are compressed onto a single Hollerith card per specimen.]

The other problem is that "the public" is unable to understand the raw data. They may be able to understand the statistics derived from those data, whether those statistics are derived by the scientists paid for doing the study or by the ones paid to discredit any study that would be bad for business. The most egregious example I have seen was by a chemical company that was polluting the primary home of an endangered subspecies of turtle. They supported the research of someone who concluded that the turtle was not a good subspecies. How was this possible? For one thing, the author ignored the study in the same journal, a few issues back that verified the status as a good subspecies. For another, it ignored the key characters that distinguish the subspecies from its relatives. This is akin to saying that elephants and parsley are identical because they both are composed of cells.

As normal I'm left speechless by your ignorance and willingness to believe anything your right wing media tells you to think. If you honestly believe that 97% of climate scientist are all wrong or are all lying then I'm really sorry, why are you wasting your time asking spurious questions about climate change?

Even sceptics admit that the climate is changing, all we are arguing about now is what is responsible. There is no big natural smoking gun to identify, which leaves us - human activity.

No doubt I will get the normal torrent of abuse, but outside the tiny bubble of right wing America the rest of the world is pretty much in agreement that climate change is real, we are responsible and that we need to do something about it.

Select the half facts to fit your argument by all means as that makes your feel safer and more secure, but just try to look beyond Fox/News International for all your answers. Open your mind up and don't get so angry about this. No ones trying to steal your rights or take your guns away.

anyone interested in deciphering them. [The work was done in the days when data storage was a huge problem so the data are compressed onto a single Hollerith card per specimen.]

Even NOAA say the corrections warm.