That's a good point - Since many people tend to lump all scientists together, the alarmist climate 'scientists' are trashing the reputations of those doing the hard sciences . I've come to view science today as existing in three distinct branches: legitimate science (rigor and reproducibility), social 'science' (fuzzy and feel-good), and climate 'science' (evil and deceptive).
Most scientists don't know enough outside their own area of expertise to comment, and hope that other scientists are ethical and committed to real word results not politicized outcomes; but I know if I was sending an e-mail telling people I used a “trick” to “hide the decline” involving any of my own science work - heads would roll. Mine first. And nobody would defend me.
But different rules apparently apply to the science-ish branches. Seeings as how it is all mostly bullsh*t anyway, you want to come down hard on someone for fudging the bullsh*t? Well yes, actually - if they are going to try to call it science, and peer reviewed and all that.
Besides ‘trick's to ‘hide the decline’ the e-mails also showed collusion to circumvent the peer review process. Their bovine excrement was falling apart and they were caught saying that they would ‘change the peer review process if he have to’; they knew they had to in order to keep ‘hiding the decline’.
Thanks for keeping the distinction clear.
Never forget that the Communists tried to call their economic system a “science”. If it was then every ‘experiment’ was an absolute failure, with ‘theory’ not only not explaining all observed data, it was at odds with all of it.