If Climategate taught us anything it is that what the AGW cabal practices is advocacy, not science. In the aftermath of that scandal, one would think that there are a few red lines that the AGW cabal would never again cross. Chief among those is their bastardization of the scientific method. Everything that a scientist chooses to publish should include not merely conclusions, but raw data, meta data, and methodology, including any and all computer programing used to massage the data. Only then can their conclusions be vetted and verified. Not one iota less should ever again be tolerated.
Yet today we learn from Steve McIntyre at Climate Audit that these shills are once again complaining about having to make their work - other than their conclusions - available to the public:
Climate scientists have recently been promoting the myth that providing data in response to FOI requests was interfering with their work. Nature uncritically accepted this myth in a recent editorial calling for action to protect climate-change researchers from “endless time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts.”:
If there are benefits to the e-mail theft, one is to highlight yet again the harassment that denialists inflict on some climate-change researchers, often in the form of endless, time-consuming demands for information under the US and UK Freedom of Information Acts. Governments and institutions need to provide tangible assistance for researchers facing such a burden…
While the scientific method is supposed to require fact checking, in this case, the mantra had merely been repeated over and over by climate scientists like a sort of tribal chant and, without carrying out even a modicum of due diligence to determine the veracity of the claims, Nature joined into the chant.
Ponder that . . . whilst I go find my stash of tar and feathers and a hockey stick to beat them with.