“Right. Normally they do this without talking about it... “
I couldn’t disagree more. In my 32 years of experience doing research at Mobil (and later ExxonMobil) I never saw scientists or engineers behaving in a manner remotely approaching what seems to be routine at the “CRU.” Hiding or making up data would be a sure way to get your ass fired - very fast.
The person in the article, on the other hand, was talking about academic establishments, government research institutes, peer review and scientific journals and editors approving or rejecting science papers. And you can't even pretend to tell me that doesn't follow all the campiness of medieval theologians in field after field, complete with anathemas and patronage trails behind every "principle investigator". Because I know better, personally.
If an article cites the reviewer, he approves it. If the article has errors he will chide to correct them if he is diligent and notices. If an article cite the reviewer's chief debating opponent in the field, some will be fair and many will not be. If it doesn't cite, it is worthless, it misses the point, it fails to acknowledge the seminal contributions of glorious X et al (not signed, X). It is a standing joke how awful it is. The solution is vertically integrated research silos that approve papers in their own school - exactly like medieval theology.
Then it is left to the young researcher to wade through the spurious published to not perish crap for the actually important gold - usually guided by a non-too-objective direction given by some interested advisor. If the advisor is smart, he helps that navigation precisely by dispensing with the pious blather and telling it like it is; if he is a self righteous spinner himself, heaven help the young researcher, because the system sure as hell won't.