Actually the problem is they have a theory. This requires a paper to be written and then tested by peers. ie Cold Fusion.
What has been done is a theory has been submitted and the data is then manipulated so it appears to match reality. This is then used to justify why it doesn’t need peer review.
Members of the scientific community have no access to the raw data or how it is gathered. Only the polished results with only vague references to how it is gathered.
A perfect example is the “fact” that Antarctic ice is melting. Much of this data is gathered near an active volcano.
Another “fact” is glaciers are melting. As anyone from MN can tell you, even though ice melts at 32deg, it also evaporates at lower temps. Without continued snowfall, eventually it vanishes due to evaporation.
Not to pick on what you say, but one of the ways this hoax has been perpetrated is through THE MYTH OF PEER REVIEW. That being that data, analysis, or results presented in a "scientific" paper submitted for publication is somehow "tested" or "proven" by other scientists before it is published.
"Peer Review" has NOTHING WHATEVER to do with science.
It is a process used by PUBLISHERS of "scientific" journals to convince their readers that what they print isn't so wildly out of the realm of possibility as to be unworthy of reading.
>>As anyone from MN can tell you, even though ice melts at 32deg, it also evaporates at lower temps. Without continued snowfall, eventually it vanishes due to evaporation.
Technically, that is sublimation - a phase change directly from the solid to the gaseous state, with no intermediate liquid state. Evaporation is a phase change of a material from liquid to gaseous.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sublimation_%28phase_transition%29#Water