Actually, that *is* how science works. When the results do not fit the hypothesis, it's time to change the hypothesis and try again. This has nothing to do with "consensus", though.
True, but that's not what happened here. These "researchers" changed the DATA to match the hypothesis, not the other way around.
That's quite some time ago but they've never given up trying to get the satellites to measure what they believe the standard weather station (a white box with tubes in it that sits in the Sun next to an air conditioner) was reporting.
Again, that was a long time ago.
NASA did an adjustment to the satellite data and the Ecolibtards shut up for a while.
These grad students were probably about 10 years old or less when that adjustment was made.
Astute observers then noted that after a period of time the satellite data began to show a FLAT trajectory for GLOBAL WARMING. Even with Ecolibtard recommended and approved adjustments the satellite data didn't show the expected continuing increase they'd claimed for the standard weather stations.
Now the grad students at Washington University are demanding an adjustment to THE MODEL that uses that data to make the satellite information fall into line with earlier, more primitive models using data from the now fully discredited standard ground stations.
Something tells me these young men didn't know how Hansen had the satellites FIXED so they'd show "same as the old stuff" ~ and now they're finding out that FIXED data eventually gets out of whack ~ and most likely because of the FIX, not because of the climate models ~ they, after all, are whacked out anyway