It's not about the methods, it's about the conclusions? If they agree with me, the methods are ok, if they don't, they're a biased scientist conspiracy?

What the hell.. if someone was linking to an amateur analysis saying that log n was more expensive than n^2, would we be getting all of this philosophy about how everyone's perspective is valuable?

  data, code => cool => upvote

  statement by some organization with no data, no analysis => boring => downvote

Building up open and transparent datasets and models that anyone can work with (or lacking the domain expertise and technical skill, at least be comfortable that somebody can watch over the scientists' shoulders) is exactly what's needed.

Another article that trumpets talking points without mentioning all of the caveats is NOT needed. And the fact that it yet again implies a need for action, while entirely ignoring any assessment the costs of those effects, together with a weighing against the costs of remediation, puts the Reuters article squarely into the fearmongering side of the equation, 180 degrees off of rational debate.

Not to mention that scientists generally have no vested monetary interest in the results, despite what people here seem to think. Grant money can only be used for research, not for personal gain. By going into the sciences, instead of industry, you are willingly taking a massive loss in pay. To claim that these people are corrupt is both an insult and naive. Like any area, there will be a few bad apples.

Not at all. Being open with your data and methods make you (more) trustworthy. Stonewalling and avoiding disclosure makes you untrustworthy. It has nothing to do with your role, but with how you play it.

if a scientist falsifies data and gets caught, their entire career can be lost.

Which of the East Anglia scientists lost their careers, or even their job? (I understand that there's no real evidence that they falsified data, just some implication. But they were badly unethical.)

Not to mention that scientists generally have no vested monetary interest in the results, despite what people here seem to think. Grant money can only be used for research, not for personal gain.

The continuation of their research is personal gain. A conclusion of "nothing interesting going on here" means they've got to find a new area of research, find new grant sources, etc. If they happen to find evidence of something scary, that gives them job security. I have no proof that they followed this line of thought, but it is definitely a conflict of interest.

That said, virtually anyone involved in the field is there because they've got some passion for it, so probably everyone has some degree of conflict.

The fact that someone made a choice that leads to a lower pay scale does not make them above corruption. You may as well ask me to believe that the NEA's sole concern is teaching kids, rather than preserving their members' benefits.

Or maybe you have fallen for the propaganda of the denialists? Anyway, I think usually the actual scientific papers come with data references (otherwise they are indeed useless), but there is also a place for articles that normal people can understand. Not everybody wants or can code up their own verification program for every scientific article they come across.

Has it dawned on you that use of the word is a kind of own goal? "Hey folks, we believe in the true religion and must rout those non-believers!"

I was only using the word "denialist" to shorten the sentence - what would have been an appropriate word, then?

Ahem. Conspiring to thwart freedom of information laws is something that is bound to happen in large scale undertakings? Either you're propagandizing yourself, or you're someone that I really don't want working for my company.

The glacier thing was characterized as a "typographical error", which itself is clearly intended to minimize the ethical breach. A "typographical error" is one related to the typography -- maybe transposing digits, or accidently chopping off the bottom of a page or something. It clearly does not apply to errors of judgment, including non-reviewed sources as if they're factual.

None of this refutes AGW, which is actually my point. It makes us all wary. And the cure for that is openness and transparency. A battle of ad hominem attacks doesn't do anything for either side of the debate. But in the long run, building a case that we can all trust because we watched it being erected is to the benefit of all -- tree huggers and denialists alike.

When did that happen? If you are referring to the leaked emails, I don't think the case is so clear. Unless you want to believe it to be so.

The glaciers: don't remember the exact details, but wasn't it some relatively informal publication where the boss of the organization slipped something in without verifying with his scientists? Sounds more like sloppiness - although they should have uncovered the error sooner. But who knows, they might have had other things on their mind. I don't know how many scientists actually think about Himalayan glaciers on a daily basis (do you?). Except for the ones living in the Himalayan, one of was asked over the phone and apparently misinterpreted.

In any case, I don't think that error was made in an actual scientific paper, it was more part of general propaganda and politics. Not that I like it at all, but I don't see how it discredits the science as a whole.

In fact, I personally think dwelling on minor details and trying to blow them up to be elephants is a major indicator of revisionism.