Yes, my list of the offenses on another thread went:
1) Illegal resistance to FOIA requests
2) Tampering with scientific data to support CAGW
3) Probable destruction of data to prevent peer replication (or not) of results
4) Suppression of scientific data that contradicted their theories
5) Suppression of opposing scientific viewpoints in peer reviewed publications (then claiming that due to few peer reviewed papers being published the other side had no evidence)
6) Guidelines for brainwashing the gullible masses with their viewpoint
7) Probable money laundering
Several major players (including the creator of the “hockey stick” graph) are in big trouble.
FOIA certainly applies. But so do the basic tenets of science in the West.
When you put forward an important scientific hypothesis, such as AGW, then you need to make public the evidence on which it is based. This gives other scientists the opportunity to check the evidence and to check your math.
Refusal to make the evidence available undermines a scientist’s scientific credibility in the most basic way possible. It’s as if Galileo had said, “The earth moves,” but refused to supply any of the evidence on which he based that hypothesis.
The climate skeptics asked these climatologists, “Where’s your evidence.” And they replied, “Shut up! You’re not an accepted member of the Gang. No grants for you, and no academic tenure, and no chance to publish in any of the journals we control.”