Climate Change March

One of the most interesting things to come out of it was the complete failure of the peer review system when it came to climate change papers-

I wouldn't say that from what I understand it was some email within a research group, so that's not a failure of peer review, as the peers would not be in on it. Also I'm not sure exactly what was covered up, was it most of the data was showing what they wanted but their were a few erroneous bits? These bits then removed to make any argument clearer? If so then it's a bit dodgy but hardly a scam. Or is it completly swapping the results around type corruption? I expect it's more the first case. Remember there are plenty of other data sets and other studies. The papers have not been very clear it's typical sensationalists reporting.

I think the problem with climate change science is that due to the incredible influence and incredible vested interest by so many big companies, and countries plus the attitude of people that any change in lifestyle is bad plus the opinion of so many people that the future should be like the present but more so that it allows no room for error in CC science. If the argument for climate change is not absolutely prefect in each paper all the media and other organisations jump up and down and say it must therefore be false despite the fact that their counter argument are frequently on very dodgy ground. If a paper came out tomorrow with the result 90% chance CC in man made with exceptional results the papers would say "Climate change scientists have doubts CC is man made"

Science rarely gives perfect results. Some errors in data and non perfect results which in another area of science would be deemed to be acceptable are all of a sudden not in CC. The fear of the CC counter argument that seem to revolve around, "Your theory is not 100% perfect therefore our theory must be correct (despite the fact our theory has many many more problems with it"). It's such a political subject now.