I didn't. You did.
Do the words "Hadley CRU" ring a bell? Cheers!
That is the original post, in which I responded to a remark of yours -- even including your remark in italics so it was clear *what* I was bringing up and responding to.
You engaged in rhetorical overstepping, implying that "real" scientists would never ignore data and research.
So we can play the "no true Scotsman" fallacy, and stipulate that the Hadley crew were not "real" scientists; thereby leading to the questions of peer review, accreditation, etc., not being sufficient to "guarantee" the accuracy even of published data in the professional literature; or, allow that even "real" scientists sometimes lie, cheat, and falsify data.
Notice that in all this I did not mention or allude to "creation science".
You might also like reading this and considering its relevance to the Hadley CRU and climate studies in general.
Cheers!
“You engaged in rhetorical overstepping, implying that “real” scientists would never ignore data and research.”
No I didn’t. If you falsify and ignore data - without proper documentation, you aren’t engaging in science. That’s why “creation science” isn’t real science.
If you point is that there are bad people in every field that will attempt to make conclusions where there is no justification to do so, you are absolutely correct - but proper research, documented, with data and able to be reproduced, as much as is possible is a cornerstone. A dramatic new finding would be tested, and if there was a different conclusion it would be questioned and overturned.
“creation science” is based on literal Genesis - all reasearch need do is reach a conclusion that something is “just as it is in the Bible”. If someone is skeptical - they risk being held out as a heretic in the “creation science” community.
Maybe there are genuine researchers in “creation science” that simply want to know the scientific facts before reaching conclusions. I’ve never seen a study posted here to that effect. It doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist - but given the false basis for “creation science” I have a reasonable doubt that there is any “real” science going on.