(02-06-2017, 09:18 PM)Ashock Wrote: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/a...-data.htmlWell, of course. Just like the Hanson model, or the hockey stick. If the data doesn't fit the narrative, or predetermined prediction, then we must engage in the hunt for the missing confirmation bias. Or, if you were to actually attempt to publish an inconvenient truth about the lack of measurable warming (tactfully named "a pause") then you might need to be pilloried and/ or otherwise humiliated in the public square of science... you... you... heretic!
You wouldn't want to publish facts that might confuse the flock of ardent zealous believers.
https://arstechnica.com/science/2017/02/...ated-data/
But, on the other side. The Daily Mail's David Rose sell more rags if he goes all sensational... it's gotta be a scandal to make the scandal rag. I would note that BOTH sides of this issue ( and others) are on volume level 11 (irrational head explodes). So, it is not a mystery why we can't discuss, or publish anything without one extremist, or the other getting apoplectic.